2015 Supreme(SC) 694

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Jagdish Singh Khehar, Arun Mishra, JJ.
Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd. – Appellant
Vs.
Sanjay Dalia & Anr. – Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.10643-10644 OF 2010 (With C.A. No.4912/2015 @ SLP [C] No.8253/2013)
Decided On : 01-07-2015

IMPORTANT POINTS
Section 62 of the Copyright Act, 1957 and Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 enable plaintiff to institute a suit at a place where he or they resided or carried on business. Provisions do not enable them to drag defendant further away from such a place. These provisions do not oust jurisdiction of civil court u/s 20, CPC.
Section 20, CPC should be interpreted in a manner which prevents inconvenience to the parties.
Procedure u/s 134 of the Trade Marks Act is governed by section 20, CPC.
Intention of Legislature in Section 62 of the Copyright Act, 1957 and Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 is to avoid inconvenience to both plaintiff and defendant
In case an interpretation leads to mischief to defendant which was unforeseen by the Parliament, Court would be duty-bound to mitigate the counter mischief.
An interpretation construing an enactment as unworkable or impracticable, inconvenient, anomalous or illogical should be avoided.
Jurisdiction for the purpose of section 62 is wider than that of the court prescribed under CPC.
If the Court is not taking a view contrary to the cited judgments, there will be no question of reference to larger Bench.
Convenience of the lawyers or their expertise does not make out the territorial jurisdiction of courts.
Section 62 of the Copyright Act, 1957 and Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 are required to be interpreted in purposive manner.

Headnote:(a) Copyright Act, 1957 – Section 62 r/w Section 134(2), Trade Marks Act, 1999 and section 20, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Provisions enable plaintiff to institute a suit at a place where he or they resided or carried on business – Provisions do not enable them to drag defendant further away from such a place – These provisions do not oust jurisdiction of civil court u/s 20, CPC – Thus, ‘corporation’ can be sued at a place having its sole or principal office and where cause of action wholly or in part, arises at a place where it has also a subordinate office at such place (Para 12)

       (b) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 20, Explanation – Corporation does not mean only statutory corporations but also companies registered under Companies Act – Suit can be filed at the principal pace of the corporation or where its subordinate offices are situate and functioning – Suit can also be filed where the cause of action arose wholly or partly – Section 20 should be interpreted in a manner which prevents inconvenience to the parties. (Para 14, 15, 16)

       (1991) 4 SCC 270; (2004) 4 SCC 677; (1886) 17 QBD 421; (1889) 23 QBD 285; AIR 2001 SC 416 – Relied upon

       AIR 1943 Cal. 190; AIR 1952 Punj. 142; AIR 1978 Ori. 167 – Cited with approval

       (c) Trade Marks Act, 1999 – Section 134 – Procedure to institute suit pertaining to passing off – Governed by section 20, CPC. (Para 21)

       (d) Copyright Act, 1957 – Section 62 r/w Section 134(2), Trade Marks Act, 1999 – Principal place of business of plaintiff at Mumbai – Cause of action also arising at Mumbai – Suit filed at Delhi – Not permissible – Court at Delhi would not have jurisdiction – Heydon’s mischief rule. (Para 23)

       AIR 1957 SC 907; 1985 2 ALL ER 355; AIR 1955 SC 661 – Relied upon

       (e) Copyright Act – The provisions are unambiguous – Yet the Haydon’s rule of mischief can also be applied – Foremost, intention of Legislature is to avoid inconvenience to both plaintiff and defendant – Provisions have to be interpreted accordingly. (Para 26)

       (1973) 1 SCC 216; AIR 2002 SC 1334; (2002) 4 SCC 297 – Referred

       (f) Interpretation of statute – Interpretation leading to mischief to defendant which was unforeseen by the Parliament – Court duty-bound to mitigate the counter mischief. (Para 27)

       (g) Interpretation of statute – An interpretation construing an enactment as unworkable or impracticable, inconvenient, anomalous or illogical – Should be avoided. (Para 33)

       (1977) 2 SCC 835; (2009) 17 SCC 690; (2011) 7 SCC 639 – Relied upon

       (2010) 1 SCC 135; 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 323 – Referred

       (h) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 20 – Plaintiff has choice of forum to file suit – It should be seen that no practical or undue difficulties or disadvantage is caused either to the plaintiff or the defendant corporation – Jurisdiction for the purpose of section 62 is wider than that of the court prescribed under CPC. (Para 36, 38)

       (1991) 4 SCC 270; (2004) 4 SCC 677 – Relied upon

       (2004) 3 SCC 688; (2006) 9 SCC 41; (2008) 10 SCC 595; 2000 (1) PTC 321 (Del.); 132 (2006) Delhi Law Times 641; 2008 (38) PTC 76 (Del.); IA No. 11153/2009 in CS(OS) No.623/2009; 2014 (58) PTC 1 (Bom.); 2002 (24) PTC 405 (Del.); 2008 (37) PTC 269 Mad.; 2011 (47) PTC 209 (Bom.) – Distinguished

       (i) Administration of Justice – Precedent – Reference to larger Bench – Court not taking a view contrary to the cited judgments – No question of reference to larger Bench. (Para 44)

       (j) Administration of Justice – Territorial jurisdiction of court – Convenience of the lawyers or their expertise does not make out the territorial jurisdiction of courts. (Para 45)

       (k) Copyright Act, 1957 – Section 62 r/w Section 134(2), Trade Marks Act, 1999 – Provisions of section 62 and 134 – Interpretation – Required to be made in purposive manner. (Para 47)

       Facts of the case:

       The plaintiff/appellant had filed a suit praying for relief against defendant No.1 so as to prevent infringement of the rights of the plaintiff without obtaining the licence. The defendant owns cinema halls in Maharashtra and Mumbai where infringement is alleged and the entire cause of action, as alleged in the plaint, has arisen in Mumbai, Maharashtra.

       The Civil Suit has been filed in the High Court at Delhi, by virtue of the fact that the Branch Office of the plaintiff is situated at Delhi and the plaintiff is carrying on the business at Delhi. However the plaintiff’s Head Office is situated at Mumbai.

       The objection was raised by the defendant with regard to the territorial jurisdiction of the court at Delhi.

       The High Court have upheld the objection and held that the suit should have been filed in the court at Mumbai.

       Finding of the Court:

       Impugned judgment does not require interference.

       Result: Appeals dismissed.