VIPIN SANGHI, J.

1. The plaintiff has filed the three suits aforesaid against the respective defendants to seek relief of permanent injunction, restraining infringement of trademark, infringement of copyright, against misrepresentation, passing off, unfair competition, dilution and for damages and delivery up, etc.

2. The suits are premised on the registered trademarks claimed by the plaintiff in respect of sanitary ware. The defendants in all the three suits are parties situated in the State of Gujarat and the plaintiff has not claimed that the defendants in the three suits have any presence in Delhi, i.e. within the jurisdiction of this Court, or that any part of cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court. The plaintiff has, in all these suits, invoked Section 134 of the Trademarks Act, 1999 to claim jurisdiction in this Court on the premise that the plaintiff carries on business in Delhi/ it is located in Delhi. The plaintiff HSIL Limited is a company registered under the Companies Act having its registered office at Kolkata, West Bengal. The plaintiff also states that it has no office/ presence in the State of Gujarat. Thus, it would be seen that the plaintiff has invoked the territorial jurisdiction of this Court on the strength of the plaintiff having its own office (other than the registered office) in Delhi and on the plea that it is carrying on business in Delhi.

3. Since this Court was, prima-facie, of the view that this Court would not have territorial jurisdiction to deal with the present suits, the plaintiff’s counsel was granted time to examine the said position. On 08.04.2016, the Court passed the following order:

“ Attention of the plaintiff’s counsel has been drawn to the judgments of this Court in Piccadily Agro Industries Ltd. Vs. Ashok Narwal & Another, C.S. (OS) No.2550/2015 decided on 14.03.2016; and M/s RSPL Ltd Vs. Mukesh Sharma & Another, I.A. No. 11034/2015 in C.S. (OS) No. 124/2015 decided on 05.04.2016. He seeks time to examine the position.

At his request, adjourned to 26.04.2016.”

4. Arguments were heard on the aspect of jurisdiction and order reserved thereafter on 26.04.2016.

5. The submission of learned counsel for the plaintiff is that the plaintiff has its branch/ subsidiary office in Delhi and, at the same time, the plaintiff has no presence in Gujarat. Neither its principal office, nor subsidiary office, nor branch office is situated in Gujarat. The plaintiff, therefore, submits that since the plaintiff has no presence in Gujarat – where the entire cause of action has arisen, the plaintiff cannot be bound down to invoke the jurisdiction of the Courts in Gujarat by resort to Section 134 of the Trademarks Act, and the plaintiff can prefer a suit under Section 134 of the Trademarks Act at Delhi, it being the place where it has its branch/ subsidiary office.

6. Learned counsel for the plaintiff seeks to rely upon paragraph 13 of Indian Performing Right Society Ltd. Vs. Sanjay Dalia & Another, 155 (2008) DLT 164 (DB) (referred to hereinafter as IPRS Delhi), decided by a Division Bench of this Court. Learned counsel submits that the said decision was upheld by the Supreme Court in Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd. Vs. Sanjay Dalia & Another, AIR 2015 SC 3479 (referred to hereinafter as IPRS SC). Thus, according to the learned counsel for the plaintiff, the present suits are maintainable in this Court. Mr. Gupta submitted that in IPRS SC (supra), the Supreme Court was dealing with a situation where the cause of action had arisen at the same place where the plaintiff was having its registered office. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the suit could not be maintained by the plaintiff at the place where it had its branch office, as no part of cause of action had arisen at the location of the branch office. Learned counsel for the plaintiff also relies on Dhodha House Vs. S.K. Maingi, AIR 2006 SC 730, wherein the Supreme Court elaborated on the expressions “carries