Jurisdictions in online transactions can be established where any part of the cause of action arises, such as accessing websites and completing transactions within that jurisdiction.

ORDER

I.As. 13230/2021 (by the defendant No.1 under Order VII Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC for return of plaint) & 6064/2021 (by the plaintiff under Section 20(b) r/w 151 CPC seeking leave of the court to file the suit in Delhi)

1. This order will dispose of the application filed on behalf of defendant No.1 under Order VII Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code 1908 (for short `CPC') for return of the plaint as well as the application of the plaintiff under Section 20(b) of the CPC seeking leave to file the suit in Delhi.

2. It is the contention of Mr. Vinay Navare, learned senior counsel for the defendant No.1, that the suit has been filed in Delhi, whereas neither the plaintiff nor the defendant No.1 was located in Delhi. According to learned senior counsel for defendant No. 1, the plaintiff had an office in Mumbai and the defendant No.1 was located in Hyderabad and therefore, under Section 20 CPC, leave of this court to file the suit here could not have even been sought.

3. Relying on the judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Escorts Limited v. Tejpal Singh Sisodia, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 7607, it was submitted that online activity through a website, which was accessible from all parts of the world could not vest any and every court with jurisdiction. Moreover, there was no document placed on the record to show that the defendants No.2 and 3 had any business in Delhi or that some person had actually accessed the website in Delhi and purchased the commodity from the defendants No.2 and 3. Thus, when the defendant No.1 had not acquiesced to the jurisdiction of this court, the plaint was liable to be returned. Reliance in this regard has been placed on the order of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Ajay Pal Sharma vs. Udaiveer Singh, Order dated 28th July, 2020 in CS(OS)139/2020.

4. In the application, however, several other grounds have also been taken. Rejection of the plaint was sought on the ground that, though the plaintiff had come to know of the alleged infringement some time in 2019, the suit was filed only on 28th April, 2021. Further, the plaintiff's suit patent was expiring on 25th February, 2022, and it had approached the court at the fag end of the expiry of its patent. Thus, there was no urgency disclosed by the plaintiff. Further, there was no averment that the plaintiff enjoyed exclusivity to the patent as the plaintiff was only a licensee and the suit filed by it was not maintainable.

5. It was further stated that this court has no territorial jurisdiction, as not even a single transaction has been shown to have taken place within the jurisdiction of this Court. Further, the plaintiff at best could claim only rights to design and not to a scientific invention and since the process involved in the products of the defendant No.1 was different, there was no relief that could be claimed against defendant No.1. Finally, it was stated in the application that the plaintiff's pre-grant opposition was pending before the Patent Office and thus, the suit was without cause of action.

6. Learned senior counsel for the defendant No.1, however stressed the lack of jurisdiction. The learned senior counsel urged that the plaint be returned for being filed in the court with jurisdiction, namely Hyderabad, where the defendant No.1 was located.

7. In the reply filed to this application, as also urged during arguments on behalf of the plaintiff by Mr. Neeraj Grover, learned counsel for the plaintiffs, the suit had been filed for permanent and mandatory injunction against the three defendants to restrain them from violating and infringing the rights of the plaintiff in the suit patent. Therefore, the application under consideration had no substance whatsoever. In the reply, it has been stoutly denied that the suit was filed beyond limitation, or that there was no urgency, or that the plaintiff being a licensee had no right to file the present suit. It was submitted that these avermen