SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Mad) 796

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N.SENTHILKUMAR, J.
Alphhatec Audio Video Private Limited - Applicant
Versus
Empower Tribe Commertial FZE, Fze (earlier Known As Music Tribe Fze) - Respondent
A. No. 2518 of 2025 AND C.S(COMM DIV) SR. No. 83176 Of 2025
Decided On : 05-01-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Applicant :Mr. S.R. Rajagopal, Senior Advocate for M/s. Aditya Sarangarajan
For the Respondent: Mr. P.H. Aravind Pandian, Senior Counsel for Mr. S. Aravindan for M/s. Fox Mandal And Associates

A plaintiff must establish a valid cause of action within territorial jurisdiction; mere presence of a franchise and unsupported claims do not suffice for jurisdiction or exclusive rights.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 20 - Jurisdiction - Leave to sue defendants outside territorial jurisdiction - Plaintiff claimed exclusive distributorship of defendants' products in India, supported by agreements; defendants contended agreement lapsed and jurisdiction not established - Court finds insufficient material to support exclusive claim or cause of action within jurisdiction, dismissing the application to sue. (Paras 1, 12, 34)

(B) Jurisdictional Principles - A plaintiff must establish that part of the cause of action arose within the court's jurisdiction; mere presence of a franchise does not suffice; agreements indicate exclusive jurisdiction lies elsewhere. (Paras 18, 32)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiff sought leave to sue defendants incorporated in UAE and Malaysia, alleging exclusive distributorship based on historical agreements; defendants countered that no exclusive rights were granted and the claim was an abuse of process as a similar suit was pending in Bombay. The commercial relationship was noted to have significant consequences if disrupted. (Paras 4-6, 17)

Findings of Court:
The court found the claim for territorial jurisdiction unsupported, as the plaintiff could not substantiate its claim of being an exclusive distributor based on the agreements provided. (Paras 34)

Issues: The primary issues were the validity of the exclusive distributorship claim and whether the cause of action arose within the court's jurisdiction. (Paras 26, 34)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the plaintiff did not establish a prima facie case for exclusive distributorship or demonstrate a valid cause of action arising within the jurisdiction, emphasizing the necessity of evidence over mere assertions. (Paras 34)

Result: Application dismissed.

Table of Content
1. establishment of business relationship between parties. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. claims of exclusivity in distributorship. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
3. contention of defendants regarding maintainability of the suit. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
4. standards for jurisdiction in civil suits. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
5. conditions under which leave to sue is evaluated. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28)
6. evaluation of cause of action and exclusive distributorship. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32)
7. dismissal of application for leave to sue. (Para 34 , 35)

ORDER :

N.SENTHILKUMAR, J.

The plaintiff has filed the present suit as against the defendants for the following reliefs:

(a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to grant permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, nominees or assigns or persons acting for and on their behalf and through and under them from engaging with, appointing or authorising with any third party in any manner whatsoever (whether by way of an express, implied, oral or written agreement or otherwise) for the import, promotion, resale and/or distribution of the defendants' product portfolio in India using any of the land, airway or seaway ports at Chennai;

(b) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to grant permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, nominees or assigns, or persons acting for and on their behalf and through and under them from entering into any kind of arrangement with any third party, including and not restricted to any express, implied, oral or written agreement or otherwise, for the import, promotion, resale and/or distribution of the defendants' product portfolio, that is currently in operation/to be executed in India;

(c) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass any other order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in light of the facts and circumstances of the present case and in the interest of justice and equity."

Along with the Plaint, an application was filed seeking the leave of this court to sue the defendants, who reside outside the territorial jurisdiction of this court.

2. The applicant/plaintiff claimed that they are carrying out business under the name and style of M/s.Alphatec Audio Video Private Limited, having its corporate office at A Wing - 709, Kanakia Wall Street, Andheri Kurla Road, Chakala, Mumbai 400 093 and having its local franchise at C/o.Studio Care, 'Singaram Saraswathi Illam', 14th Street, M.G.Chakrapani Nagar, Alapakkam, Chennai - 600 116.

3. The first defendant is Empower Tribe Commercial FZE, a company incorporated under the laws of UAE, having its registered office at FC0401WS90, Jebel Ali Free Zone, Dubai, United Arab Emirates and the second defendant is Music Tribe Commercial MY Sdn. Bhd., a company incorporated under the laws of Malaysia, having its registered office at 1-17-02, Suntech @ Penang, Cybercity, LinTang, Mayang Pasir 3, Bayan Baru, Pulau Pinang, Malaysia.

4. According to the plaintiff, the defendants are engaged in the business of sale and distribution of the audio video equipments across the globe under certain brands of the defendants such as - Behringer, Aston, Klarkteknik, Labgruppen, Lake, Midas, Tannoy, TC Electronic and TC Helcon, including the sale and distribution of such equipments under the said brand names in India. Prior to plaintiff's involvement in the sale and distribution of defendants' products in India, the second defendant had engaged another distributor for the sale of its products in Indian territory. However, since the year 2015, the plaintiff is in business relationship with the second defendant and that for over a decade, the plaintiff has served as the single window point of contact for the promotion, sale, and after sales service of the defendants' product portfolio in the Indian territory. The defendants' product portfolio which is promoted, sold and distributed by the plaintiff in the territory of India includes all the audio video equipments falling

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top