Reckitt Benckiser (India) Private Limited vs Sauss Home Products Private Limited

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Del) 437

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
AMIT BANSAL
Reckitt Benckiser (India) Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Sauss Home Products Private Limited – Respondent

Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. C.M. Lall, Senior Advocate with Ms. Anuradha Salhotra, Ms. Ekta Sarin, Mr. Nikhil Sharma, Ms. Vanshika Arora and Ms. Annanya Mehan, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Mr. Gagan Gupta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Arkaj Kumar, Ms. Ramya Aggarwal, Mr. Aakarsh Mishra, Mr. Ishank Jha and Ms. Vaishnavi Bhargava, Advocates.

Table of Content
1. jurisdiction assessments based on territorial claims. (Para 1)

JUDGMENT :

AMIT BANSAL, J.

1. By way of the present judgment, I shall decide I.A. 14723/2023 filed on behalf of the plaintiff under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) seeking interim injunction and I.A. 20814/2023 filed on behalf of the defendant under Order VII, Rules 10 and 11, CPC seeking return/rejection of plaint.

I.A. 20814/2023 (u/O VII Rules 10 and 11, CPC

2. The present application has been filed on behalf of the defendant seeking return/rejection of plaint.

3. The principal ground taken by the defendant is that this Court lacks territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the present suit on the ground that the plaintiff’s registered office is situated in Haryana.

4. It is submitted that as per Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and/or Section 62 of the Copyright Act, 1957 , the plaintiff cannot claim jurisdiction of this Court since it does not carry on business or personally works for gain in Delhi.

5. It is further stated that not only does the defendant not have any office in Delhi, but no alleged infringing goods are available in the territorial jurisdiction o