Important Points:
Section 62 of the Copyright Act and Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, an additional forum has been provided by including a District Court within whose limits the plaintiff actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain
further observed and held that expression "notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, does not oust the applicability of the provisions of Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure and it is clear that additional remedy has been provided to the plaintiff so as to file a suit where he is residing or carrying on business etc. as the case may be.

M.R. Shah, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Commercial Court, Ahmedabad dated 21.02.2017 passed below Exh. 13 in Commercial Civil Suit No. 314 of 2016, by which, the Commercial Court has dismissed the said application submitted by the original defendants which was submitted to reject the plaint in exercise of powers under Order 7 Rule 10 and Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the original defendants have preferred the present appeal under Section 13 of the Commercial Court Act r/w Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

2. The facts leading to the present Appeal From Order in nutshell are as under:

2.1. That the respondents No. 1 and 2 herein - original plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as the "original plaintiffs") initially instituted the Civil Suit in the Court of learned District Judge at Ahmedabad (Rural) being Civil Suit No. 6of 2012 for declaration of infringement of Trade Mark; infringement of Copyright and passing off seeking permanent injunction against the defendants. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the plaintiffs have their registered office at Anand and original defendants have their registered office within the territorial jurisdiction of Ahmedabad (Rural). That having been served with the summons/notice of civil suit, the defendants submitted the application below Exh. 13 requesting to reject the plaint under Order 7 Rule 10 and 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, contending inter alia that the suit filed by the plaintiffs for the reliefs sought in the plaint, the Court at Ahmedabad (Rural) shall not have any jurisdiction and considering Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act and Section 62 of the Copyright Act, the suit before the Anand Court only shall be maintainable. Before the application Exh. 13 could be heard, on establishment of Commercial Court at Ahmedabad, the suit which was pending before the Court at Ahmedabad (Rural) came to be transferred to the Commercial Court, Ahmedabad, which is numbered Commercial Civil Suit No. 314 of 2016. That by impugned order, the learned Judge, Commercial Court at Ahmedabad has rejected the said application by holding that even for the reliefs of infringement of Trade Mark and/or Copyright the suit filed by the original plaintiffs at the relevant time before the Ahmedabad Rural Court shall be maintainable.

2.2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order passed by the learned Judge, Commercial Court at Ahmedabad passed below Exh. 13 dated 21.02.2017 in Commercial Civil Suit No. 314 of 2016, the original defendants have preferred present Appeal From Order.

3. Shri R.R. Shah, learned advocate for the original defendants has vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case learned Commercial Court has materially erred in rejecting the application below Exh. 13 and has materially erred in holding that the suit for the reliefs prayed in the suit, more particularly, for infringement of the Trade Mark and the infringement of Copyright before the District Court, Ahmedabad (Rural) shall be maintainable.

3.1. It is further submitted by Shri R.R. Shah, learned advocate for the original defendants that as such a composite suit for infringement of Trade Mark, infringement of Copyright and passing off action shall not be maintainable.

3.2. It is further submitted by Shri R.R. Shah, learned advocate for the original defendants that it is an admitted position that the plaintiffs are having their registered office at Anand within the local territorial jurisdiction of the Anand Court. It is submitted that therefore, considering Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act and Section 62 of the Copyright Act, the suit shall be maintainable where the plaintiffs carry on business and/or is having its principal office or even the subordinate office. It is submitted that therefore, more particularly, composite suit for the aforesaid reliefs shall not be main