The interpretation of the expression 'carries on business' in the context of the plaintiff under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and the Copyright Act, 1957, and the restrictions on the plaintiff's right to institute a suit at a place where the cause of action has arisen.

JUDGMENT

Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. Appellant impugns order dated 28.03.2017 whereby the application under Order VII Rule 11 Code of Civil Procedure (CPC for short) filed by the respondent has been allowed holding that the Court does not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

2. Subject Suit for permanent injunction, for restraining the respondents from infringing the trademark of the appellant/plaintiff, passing off, delivery of, rendition of accounts, etc., was filed by the appellant alleging that the respondents had adopted the trademark "GOA" and "GO4" of the appellant and that the respondent had also applied for excise approvals of the labels of alcoholic products.

3. It is contended that the excise application was objected to by the Appellants, however on 28.04.2015 the office of the Commissioner State Excise, Maharashtra, Mumbai approved the labels of respondent of no. 1. Thereafter the subject suit for injunction has been filed.

4. Respondents filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking dismissal of the Suit for lack of territorial jurisdiction. It is contended in the application that the Courts at Delhi do not have the territorial jurisdiction as neither the respondents are residing in Delhi nor carrying on their business within the territorial jurisdiction of Delhi and further that no cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the Courts at Delhi.

5. It was contended that the registered office of respondent no. 1 and respondent no. 2 was at Mumbai and Pune, respectively and the manufacturing by respondent no. 1 and the marketing by respondent no. 2 was in the State of Maharashtra.

6. It was further contended that the mark in issue was in respect of alcoholic beverages which is a State excisable product and could not be sold/marketed unless necessary label approvals are obtained from the respective State Excise Departments. It is contended that the approvals were sought from the Maharashtra State Excise Department and no approval has been sought from the Delhi State Excise Department.

7. It is further contended that the appellant/plaintiff had an office at Mumbai and a bottling unit at Aurangabad; both within the State of Maharashtra and as such the Courts at Delhi had no territorial jurisdiction.

8. In response to the application, appellant contended that the registered office of respondent no. 1 was at Solapur, Maharashtra and that plaintiff had no office in Aurangabad and the bottling unit at Aurangabad was that of a separate legal entity i.e. a private limited company in which appellant had a 36% shareholding.

9. It was further contended that the Mumbai office of the appellant was a subordinate sale office and not the principal place of business. Further the principal place of business was stated to be at the corporate office at Delhi though the registered office of the appellant/plaintiff was at Rampur, Uttar Pradesh.

10. It was further contended that the dynamic effects of respondents' action in obtaining an excise clearance was felt in Delhi as there was likelihood that the respondent could launch their products in Delhi. Consequently the Courts at Delhi would have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

11. Learned Single Judge by the impugned order, referring to the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Ultra Home Construction Pvt. Ltd. vs. Purushottam Kumar Chaubey, 2016(65) PTC 469 (Del) (DB) (of which one of us, Sanjeev Sachdeva J., was also a member), held that as part of the cause of action had arisen at a place where the plaintiff had a subordinate branch office, the suit would lie only at the subordinate office and not at the principal office.

12. The Division Bench of this Court in Ultra Home Construction Pvt. Ltd. (Supra), after considering the judgment of the Supreme Court in Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd. vs. Sanjay Dalia, (2015) 10 SCC 161 held as under:

"13. It is evident from the above observations that the inter