JUDGMENT :

M. Sundar, J.

Captioned application has been taken out with 'Leave to Sue' ['LTS' for the sake of brevity] prayer.

2. When the captioned application was listed before this Commercial Division on 18.11.2022, proceedings were made and a scanned reproduction of the same is as follows :

3. Aforementioned proceedings shall now be read as an integral part and parcel of this order. This means that the short forms and abbreviations used in the aforementioned earlier proceedings will continue to be used in the instant order also for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity.

4. As jurisdiction is inherent, 'when this Commercial Division has jurisdiction over a part of cause of action, the question is whether this Commercial Division would exercise jurisdiction over the entire suit?' is the neat question that falls for consideration in any LTS application. To be noted, it is settled law that jurisdiction is inherent and grant of leave is only an expression of the Court's intention to exercise jurisdiction over the entire suit when it has jurisdiction over a part of cause of action. In the case on hand, as regards reliefs qua infringement of trademark and infringement of copyright (i.e., first and second limbs of prayer) are concerned, Section 134(2) of 'The Trade Marks Act, 1999 (47 of 1999)' [hereinafter 'TM Act' for the sake of brevity and convenience] and Section 66(2) of 'The Copyright Act, 1957 (14 of 1957)' [hereinafter 'CR Act' for the sake of brevity and convenience] do not come to the aid of the plaintiff, as the plaintiff is carrying on business outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Commercial Division. As regards relief qua passing off (i.e., third limb of prayer), it is a common law action / remedy, but Section 20 of 'The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908)' [hereinafter 'CPC' for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity] is not applicable to this Commercial Court in the light of Section 120 CPC'. This means that when the case of the plaintiff is that, a part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commercial Division, the plea has to be pivoted and predicated only on Clause 12 of Letters Patent. It is in this context, aforementioned proceedings dated 18.11.2022 was made.

5. As regards grant of leave and territorial jurisdiction, a larger Bench of this Court [S. Annapoorni case being S. Annapoorni vs. K. Vijay reported in 2022 SCC Online Mad 4367] while deciding a reference regarding jurisdiction under the Guardians and Wards Act, had summed up the trajectory of legal history and territoriality in one paragraph and one significant paragraph in this regard is paragraph No.316, which reads as follows :

'316. Mr. Arvind P. Datar, learned senior counsel made a fervent plea that concurrent jurisdiction is being exercised for more than three and a half decades, i.e., 35 years now and therefore, it has attained the character and sanctity of a convention. It may be appropriate to not to disturb, derail or dislodge such a convention. Mr. N. Jothi, learned counsel besides legal submissions made a poignant but pertinent plea that this Court should not shut the doors on helpless and hapless minor children. These fervent and poignant pleas appeal to my judicial conscience and it synchronizes with legal literature, which if I were to sum up and state in one sequence of fourteen short sentences not as a Sonnet of sorts but in prosaic prose, it runs like this: (a) chronicle is, the Supreme Court of Madras (replacing Recorders Court at Madras) is of the year 1800; (b) Supreme Court of Madras was abolished by the Indian High Courts Act, 1861; (c) the High Court of Madras succeeded to all the powers and jurisdiction; (d) a new Letters Patent was issued for the High Court of Judicature at Madras on 26.06.1862; (e) on 28.12.1865, this 1862 Letters Patent was replaced with a new Letter