1. The Petitioners (Original Plaintiffs) have filed the above petition for grant of Leave under Clause XIV of the Letters Patent. The Respondents are opposing the said grant on the ground that this is a fit case for refusal of leave in exercise of the discretion conferred on the Court by Clause XIV of the Letters Patent. For the sake of convenience the Petitioners shall hereinafter be referred to as “Plaintiffs” and the Respondents as “Defendants”.

2. The Plaintiffs are the registered Proprietor of two trade marks “Cafe Madras” bearing Nos. 1390976 and 1390977. The Registration Certificates are at page 30 and 31 of the Plaint. The legal proceedings certificates are at pages 93-96 of the Plaint. The above suit seeks two fold reliefs i.e. against: (i) infringement and (ii) passing off. This Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit for infringement by virtue of the provisions of Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (“the Act”). The infringement action before this Court will therefore be maintainable and continue, regardless of whether leave is granted or not. The cause of action for passing off has admittedly arisen outside the jurisdiction of this Court i.e. Nashik and Jalgaon where the Defendants have opened restaurants with the name identical to that of the Plaintiffs' restaurant and also identical to the Plaintiffs' registered trade mark “Cafe Madras”. According to the Plaintiffs, they would be entitled to file suits against the Defendants for passing of before the District Courts of Jalgaon and Nasik. However, were such suits to be filed, (i) the parties thereto, (ii) the rival marks in question; (iii) the general inquiry by the Court; (iv) the majority of issues (if not almost all) [e.g. honesty of adoption, likelihood of deception/confusion; identify of the marks, etc.]; (v) the evidence/evidentiary inquiry, etc. will also be the same. In this background, it is therefore submitted on behalf of the Plaintiffs that the multiple actions be allowed to be clubbed and/or joined together in one action by granting leave under Clause XIV of the Letters Patent instead of compelling the Plaintiffs to institute three separate suits.

3. Dr. Veerendra Tulzapurkar, the Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Defendants, has opposed the application seeking grant of leave under Clause XIV of the Letters Patent. He has taken the Court through Clause XIV of the Letters Patent which reads thus:

“And We do further ordain that where plaintiff has several causes of action against a defendant, such causes of action not being for land or other immovable property, and the said High Court shall have original jurisdiction in respect of one of such causes of action, it shall be lawful for the said High Court to call on the defendant to show cause why the several causes of action should not be joined together in one suit, and to make such order for trial of the same as to the said High Court shall seem fit.”

Dr. Tulzapurkar submitted that the provisions of Clause XIV of the Letters Patent require the Court in each case to consider the facts and exercise discretion before granting the leave. The provisions are not similar to the provisions of Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 under which the Court is bound to stay the subsequent suit if the issues in the subject suit are substantially the same as those in the earlier suits instituted in a Court having jurisdiction. If the conditions are satisfied, the grant of stay under Section 10 of the CPC is mandatory. Even if the earlier suit is instituted mala fide, the Court has no option but to grant stay of the subsequent suit, if the conditions in Section 10 CPC are satisfied. However, under Clause XIV of the Letters Patent, even if the conditions are satisfied, viz. if the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit for one cause of action, it is not obliged to grant leave to the Plaintiff to combine other causes of action in respect of which the High Court has no juris