REVA KHETRAPAL, J.

Plaintiffs have filed the above suit claiming a decree of permanent injunction against the defendant from using the trade mark 'CITI' of the plaintiffs as a domain name, a decree of mandatory injunction for transfer of the domain name "citi.in" of the plaintiffs and for rendition of accounts for passing off and infringement of the aforesaid registered trade mark of the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs in filing the above suit have stated that the plaintiff no. 1 is a company organized and existing under the laws of State of Delaware, United States of America and plaintiff no. 2 is a wholly owned subsidiary of the first plaintiff. Plaintiff nos. 1 and 2 have a corporate office at New York, USA. The plaintiffs are well renowned and world leaders, inter alia, in banking and financial services and their renowned trade marks are CITIBANK, CITI and a number of other well-known family marks such as CITICORP, CITIGROUP, CITISELECT, CITIBANKING, CITICARD, CITIONE, CITIPHONE, CITIGOLD, CITISERVICE, CITILIFE, CITITREASURY. During the sunrise period (January 1, 2005 to January 21, 2005), the Country Code Top Level Domain (ccTLD) ".in" were made available for registered proprietors of trade marks only, and later, on February 16, 2005 for the general public on a first to apply basis. The plaintiffs during this period obtained registration of the domain names "citicorp.in" and "citibank.in" as they had registration for these trade marks in India. For the remaining trade names, the plaintiff no. 1 applied for registration of domain names "citi.in", "citifinancial.in" and "citigroup.in" with one of the accredited registrars, namely, Net 4 India, appointed by the National Internet Exchange of India (NIXI) as early as January 28, 2005. However, the plaintiffs were shocked to learn that the defendants had applied for and were granted the domain name "citi.in", though the defendants had not launched any website for the said domain name. The plaintiffs accordingly instituted the above suit.

Defendants have filed the present application for rejection of the above plaint in view of the subsequent development relating to establishment of .IN Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (hereinafter referred to as "INDRP") for adjudication of all disputes arising out of the registration and use of in internet domain name. The contention of the defendants is that with the formulation of the INDRP, the present proceedings are liable to be terminated as the subject-matter of suit is covered by the said Policy (Annexure A to the application) and the Rules framed thereunder. As such, the suit be dismissed as no longer maintainable in view of the provisions contained in Sections 2(2) and 5 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 read with Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

In the course of hearing in order to rebut the aforesaid contention of the defendants, counsel for the plaintiffs made a fourfold submission as follows :

(i) The present application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed on the same facts and legal propositions as those taken in IA No. 4842/2006 (under Order VII Rule 11 CPC). The said application having been dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 19th April, 2006, the present application which is on identical pleas cannot be entertained. Even otherwise, the application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be entertained for rejection of a plaint for which a specific provision is made by the Code of Civil Procedure by enactment of Order VII Rule 11.

(ii) Under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the jurisdiction of civil courts can only be ousted by an express or implied bar and there is no such bar either express or implied in the instant case. Thus, the jurisdiction of the civil court does not stand ousted in effect or by necessary implication by the setting up of the arbitral tribunal under the INDR Policy.

(iii) Arbitral tribunal set up under the INDR Policy h