JUDGMENT - D.R. DHANUKA, J.:---By my order dated 29th August 1991, I have dismissed the notice of motion for the reasons to be dictated separately. I now proceed to dictate the reasons for my said order.

2. The plaintiffs have filed this suit against the defendants for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from in any manner infringing the plaintiff's registered trade mark bearing No. 28457 and /or 264759B and/or 356125B and/or 386130B and/or from using the mark "Gold Star" or the "Seal" device or the caricature of a mechanic boy with or without the words "Kartik Mistry" so as to infinge the marks set out in prayer (a) of the plaint. The plaintiffs have also prayed for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from using the impugned label Exhibit 'K' to the plaint or any other mark or label deceptively similar to the plaintiffs' trade marks or labels so as to pass off or enable others to pass off the defendants' goods as and for the goods of the plaintiffs. By prayer (c) of the plaint, the plaintiffs have sought a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from infringing the 1st plaintiff's copyright in the defendant's original artistic work being Exhibit 'P' to the plaint under No. A-34773/81 or using the impugned label, a specimens of which is annexed as Exhibit 'K' to the plaint, in respect of any goods offered for sale or exposed for sale without the plaintiffs' licence. The plaintiffs have also prayed for a money decree for damages alleged to have been suffered by the plaintiffs as a result of the alleged infringement and for other consequential reliefs.

3. The plaintiffs have taken out Notice of Motion No. 1905 of 1989 for grant of interim injunctions in the terms set out therein. The defendant Nos. 1 and 2 have opposed the notice of motion inter alia on ground of lack of jurisdiction of this Court. The defendants 1 and 2 have pointed out that no leave was obtained by the plaintiffs under Clause 12 or Clause 14 of Letters Patent. The defendants Nos. 1 and 2 have opposed the notice of motion on the ground that the plaintiffs have wrongly filed this suit in this Court in order to harass the said defendants on the basis of false averments even though the natural forum in respect of the alleged cause of action, if any, would be the Court at Calcutta and not Bombay. The matter has been contested on merits as well. Having regard to the fundamental question of jurisdiction raised by the contesting defendants at the outset, I decided to scrutinise the plaintiffs' averments in that behalf and record my findings thereon particularly in view of mandate of section 9-A of the Code of Civil Procedure as applicable in Maharashtra.

4. The 1st defendant is a sole proprietary concern of defendant No. 2 carrying on business of manufacturing automobile parts and accessories at Calcutta.

5. The 1st and 2nd defendants do not have any office at Bombay. The 2nd defendant does not reside in Bombay.

6. In paragraph 17 of the plaint, it was averred by the plaintiffs that by an order dated 23rd March 1988, the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks ordered and directed registration of mark "Gold Star" in accordance with application of defendants Nos. 1 and 2, By the said order, the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks, Calcutta, allowed the defendants' application No. 325515 for registration of a trade mark in Class 12 and disallowed the plaintiff's application thereto No. Cal-1783. Being aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiffs have filed an appeal before the High Court of Calcutta and the same is pending. The Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta has not granted any stay of order under-appeal before the said Court.

7. On his affidavit dated 2nd September ,1989, the defendant No. 2 has in terms contended that the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 did not have any dealings with any party in Bombay. The defendant No. 2 has contended that the said defendants have no dealings with defendant No. 3 whatsoever. In order to invoke the jurisdiction of this C

Click Here to Read the rest of this document