Back
2018 Supreme(Kar) 465
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
G. NARENDRA, J.
Manipal University - Appellants
Versus
Manipal Holdings Private Limited - Respondent
MFA Nos. 916 and 2271 of 2017 (IPR)
Decided On : 28-05-2018
For the Appellant : Sajan Poovayya, Senior Counsel, Manu Kulkarni and Sushal Tiwari for Sanjanthi Krishnappa, Advs.
For the Respondents: Ashok G.V., Adv.
Headnote:CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 [C.A. No. 5/1908] - Order 7, Rules 10, 10 - A(2) & Section 20 - Order XLVIII, Rule 1(a) - Return of plaint - Jurisdiction to try suit - Trial Court directing for retuning of the plaint for its proper presentation before District Court within whose jurisdiction its principal office is situated - Provisions of Section 20 of the CPC, conjointly read with Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, does not restrict the right of plaintiff to initiate proceedings in place of its choice - Trial Court ought to have provided an opportunity to plaintiff, as provided under Order 7, Rule 10-A of the CPC -accrual of cause of action is a sine qua non for the suit to be filed - Cause of action is a bundle of facts which requires to be provided to enable Court to grant relief to plaintiff - Cause of action, not only refers to infringement, but also the material facts on which rights are founded - It is requirement of law that is has to be independently decided in each case by concerned Court as to whether the cause of action arises wholly or in part, thereby conferring jurisdiction of the Court - In the instant case the Trial Court has not even considered the issue whether the casue of action arises within whose jurisdiction the plaintiff has its principal office and carries on business - Said finding of the Trial Court is wholly contrary to law which clearly confer an additional forum under Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, or place of suing, in addition to forums as envisaged under Section 20 of the CPC - But, this right to institute the suit at such a place has to be read, subject to certain restrictions - Such as, in case, the plaintiff is residing or carrying on business at a particular place and having its head office, at such place the cause of action has also arisen wholly or in part, then the plaintiff cannot ignore such a place under the guise that he also has a subordinate office at the other place - Further Trial Court has not followed the mandate of provisions of sub-rule (2) of Rule 10-A of Order 7 of CPC - Thereby, amounting to procedural irregularity - Impugned order was set aside and matter remanded to Trial Court for deciding matter afresh in accordance with law.
G. NARENDRA, J.
1. Heard Sri. Sajan Poovayya, learned Senior counsel for the appellant-plaintiff in MFA No. 916/2017 and respondent-plaintiff in MFA No. 2271/2017 and learned counsel for the respondent-defendant in MFA No. 916/2017 and the appellant-defendant in MFA 2271/2017.
2. As both the appeals are arising out of the same order and involve common facts, these appeals are taken up for final disposal by this common judgment
3. Both the appeals are directed against the order passed by the Court below on I.A. No. 8 preferred by the plaintiff under the provisions of Order 7 Rule 10 of CPC praying to return the plaint in O.S. No. 8203/2014. The said application is purportedly preferred in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd. vs. Sanjay Dalia and another reported in (2015) 10 SCC 161.
4. These appeals by the plaintiff are preferred being partially aggrieved by the order passed by the trial Court whereby it has been pleased to direct for return of the plaint for its proper presentation before the District Court within whose jurisdiction its principal office is situated. The plaintiff has not called in question the correctness of the entire order itself allowing the Interlocutory Application. The grievance of the plaintiff is limited to the extent that the trial Court has named the Court before which the plaint has to be presented.
5. It is contended that the Court below is devoid of the authority to name the Court in which the plaint is to be presented and that in the light of the law laid down in the ruling of Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd. stated supra, the Hon'ble Apex Court interpreting the provisions of Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 held that, the forum of convenience is left to the choice of the plaintiff.
6. It is the contention of the defendant that the trial Court itself is the proper Court in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd. stated supra.
7. It is contended that as per the plaint averments, cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the trial Court as the plaintiff is admittedly having an administrative office and thereby carrying on business and the defendant is also using the Trade Mark in Bengaluru within the jurisdiction of the Trial Court. Hence, in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the suit is maintainable only before the Court at Bengaluru as the plaintiff admittedly has a subordinate office in the Bengaluru and the alleged breach of the registered Trade Mark has been committed in Bengaluru. Thus, the cause of action for the above suit arose in Bengaluru.
8. It is contended by the learned Senior counsel for the plaintiff that the plaintiff's academy was established in the year 1942 with a vision for imparting education to the Society at large and with passage of time has acquired great reputation and standing. The plaintiff started the first private medical college in the Country and thereafter, ventured further in the fields of Engineering and Law. That the plaintiff has also commenced a School of Music and Fine Arts and has also diversified in the other branch of academics and education and presently it has its footprints in India and also in foreign shores. That the University is recognized as a deemed University under Section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act 1956. That the status of deemed University came to be accorded to it under Government Order dated 01.06.1993. That the plaintiff-University is recognized as a pioneer and has earned repute and standing, internationally. That it is recognized as one of the top hundred Institutions and has contributed luminaries in the field of academics and Corporate world. That the word 'Manipal' the Trade Mark of the plaintiff has become synonymous with the field of education and despite the trading name 'Manipal' being a geographical name on account of long and continuo
