Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Munishwar Nath Bhandari, P.D.Audikesavalu, JJ.
Tirumala Milk Products Private Limited - Appellant
Versus
Tirumala Daairy Limited, rep. by its Director Suresh Dnyanobarao Kute and ors. – Respondents
O.S.A. (CAD) Nos.97, 111, 5 and 4 of 2021
Decided On : 31-01-2022
Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - Section 13 - Code of Civil Procedure,1908 - Order VII Rule 14(3) - - First question that requires to be considered is whether Single Judge was justified in refusing to take into account documents said to have been filed by Plaintiff along with written submissions after orders were reserved on in application - Plaintiff vehemently contended that inasmuch as procedure is a handmaid of justice there was no necessity for Plaintiff to seek any leave of Court for receiving additional documents along with the written submissions before the Learned Single Judge – In cases dealing with transfer of proceedings from a court having jurisdiction to another court, the discretion vested in the court by Sections 24(2) and 25(3) either to re-try the proceedings or proceed from the point at which such proceeding was transferred or withdrawn, is in marked contrast to the scheme under Order 7 Rule 10 read with Rule 10-A where no such discretion is given and the proceeding has to commence de novo – Para 12.
Finding of the Court:
case where plaintiff has a principal office at one place and a subordinate or branch office at another place and cause of action has arisen at place of the principal office - In such a case plaintiff may sue at place of principal office but cannot sue at place of the subordinate office - Third case is where the plaintiff has a principal office at one place and cause of action has arisen at place where its subordinate office is located - In this eventuality plaintiff would be deemed to carry on business at place of his subordinate office and not at place of principal office - Plaintiff could sue at place of subordinate office and cannot sue (under scheme of provisions of section 134(2) and 62(2)) at place of the principal office - Fourth case is where the cause of action neither arises at place of principal office nor at place of subordinate office but at some other place - In this case plaintiff would be deemed to carry on business at place of its principal office and not at place of subordinate office.
Result: Appeal Dismissed.
ORDER :
P.D.AUDIKESAVALU, J.
These intra-Court appeals invoking Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, 1865 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Letters Patent' for short) read with Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commercial Courts Act' for short) arise out of interlocutory orders passed in C.S. (Comm. Div.) No. 190 of 2020 on the file of the Original Side of this Court.
2. The parties are hereinafter referred to as per their description in the suit for the sake of clarity and convenience.
3. The sequence of events leading to the filing of these appeals are narrated below :-
(ii) Applications in O.A. Nos. 330 and 331 of 2020 had also been filed by the Plaintiff under Rule 1 and 2 of Order XXXIX of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'the CPC' for short), restraining the Defendants from infringing the aforesaid trade mark claimed by the Plaintiff and also to restrain the Defendants from passing off their business or milk and dairy products or for the products of the Plaintiff, and an exparte order of injunction was granted on 21.08.2020, while ordering notice to the Defendants.
(iii) Apart from the filing of the Written Statement on 18.12.2020 after service of summons in that suit, the Defendants have also filed their Counter-Affidavit in O.A. Nos. 330 and 331 of 2020 objecting the continuance of the order of interim injunction.
(iv) The Learned Single Judge, who heard the applications in O.A.Nos.330 and 331 of 2020, by the order dated 15.10.2020, made the interim injunction earlier granted absolute till the disposal of the suit, aggrieved by which the Defendants have filed O.S.A. (CAD) Nos. 5 and 4 of 2021 respectively.
(v) Another Application in A. No. 181 of 2021 had been taken out on 17.12.2020 by the Defendants before the Learned Single Judge for rejection of the plaint under Rule 11(d) of Order VII of the CPC on the contention that the Plaintiff was not actually having any sales office at the address furnished in the plaint at No. 125, 1st Floor, 7th Cross Street, Senthil Nagar, Chennai - 600099, within the territorial limits of jurisdiction of the Original Side of this Court, though the Plaintiff had filed a Counter-Affidavit dated 26.02.2021 denying the same.
(vi) After hearing both sides in A. No. 181 of 2021, orders were reserved by the learned Single Judge on the Original Side of this Court on 08.04.2021, granting liberty to the parties to file their written submissions in the said application.
(vii) According to the Plaintiff, written submissions was filed on 09.04.2021 along with the Registration Certificate issued on 24.04.2020 under the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, containing the list of additional places of business of the Plaintiff in which item 28 is its sales office mentioned in the plaint.
(viii) Final order was passed on 19.04.2021 in A. No. 181 of 2021 holding that the Plaintiff had not placed any material to show that it was carrying on business wit
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
