##PAGE1##

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Judgment delivered on: 24.12.2025

+ CS(COMM) 540/2024

ASTRAL LTD .....Plaintiff

versus

M/S. AJAY ENTERPRISES .....Defendant

Advocates who appeared in this case

For the Plaintiff : Mr. Sachin Gupta, Ms. Prashansa

Singh, Mr. Rohit Pradhan,

Mr. Adarsh Agarwal and Ms. Mahima

Chanchalani, Advocates.

For the Defendant : Mr. Arnav Goya, Mr. Nihal Singh

Shekhawat and Ms. Kanak Kaushal,

Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

JUDGMENT

TEJAS KARIA, J

I.A. 27025/2025

1. This is an Application filed on behalf of the Applicant / Defendant

under Order VII Rules 10 and 11 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil

Procedure, 1908, seeking rejection of the Plaint on the ground of lack of

Signature Not Verified

CS(COMM)540/2024 Page1of16

Signed By:NEELAM

SHARMA

Signing Date:24.12.2025

19:46:02

territorial jurisdiction of this Court to try the present Suit and that there is no

cause of action to file the present Suit.

SUBMISSIONSONBEHALFOFTHEAPPLICANT/DEFENDANT:

2. The learned Counsel for the Applicant / Defendant submitted that the

Plaintiff’s principal place of business is at its registered office at Astral

House, 207/1, B/H Rajpath Club, Off S.G. Highway, Ahmedabad, Gujarat -

380059, whereas the Defendant’s office is situated at M/s Ajay Enterprises

211, 2^nd Floor, Bapu Bazaar, Udaipur, Rajasthan. Therefore, the Defendant’s

business is situated at Udaipur, Rajasthan and the Plaintiff’s principal place

of business is situated atAhmedabad, Gujarat.

3. The learned Counsel for the Applicant / Defendant submitted that the

Plaintiff claims territorial jurisdiction of this Court on the basis of its sales

and marketing office situated at Delhi, whereas the principal place of

business of the Plaintiff lies in Ahmedabad, Gujarat. It is further submitted

that the Plaintiff cannot file the Suit in Delhi where its subordinate office is

located and shall file the same at the place of its principal office.

4. The learned Counsel for the Applicant / Defendant submitted that the

Plaintiff has not produced any documentary evidence to substantiate use of

the Mark ‘ASTRAL’ (“Defendant’s Mark”) by the Defendant in Delhi. It

is further submitted that mere Affidavit filed by the Defendant under Rule

45 of the Trade Mark Rules, 2017 (“Rules”) cannot be used to invoke the

territorial jurisdiction of this Court, especially because there are no actual

goods found to be sold in Delhi under the Defendant’s Mark.

5. The learned Counsel for the Defendant drew this Court’s attention to

Document No. 17 of the Plaintiff’s Documents and submitted that the

documentary evidence placed on record with respect to goods sold by the

Signature Not Verified

CS(COMM)540/2024 Page2of16

Signed By:NEELAM

SHARMA

Signing Date:24.12.2025

19:46:02

Defendant on IndiaMart, does not in any manner show that the Defendant is

selling the said goods under the Defendant’s Mark. Accordingly, it is

submitted that there is no cause of action to file the present Suit.

6. In view of the foregoing submissions, the learned Counsel for the

Applicant / Defendant prayed that the present Application be allowed and

the Plaint be rejected.

SUBMISSIONSONBEHALFOFTHEPLAINTIFF:

7. The learned Counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that the Defendant in

its evidence in support of the Opposition under Rule 45 of the Rules against

the Plaintiff’s Trade Mark Application No. 5256692 dated 22.12.2021, has

admitted that the goods of the Defendant under the Defendant’s Mark are

advertised and promoted across the entire country, including in Delhi.

8. The learned Counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that the Defendant in

its evidence under Rule 45 of the Rules stated that the Defendant’s products

enjoy a widespread and extensive presence across the country. It is also

submitted that the Defendant further stated therein that the Defendant’s

products are readily available to consumers nationwide, contributing to the

popularity of these products in the market.

9. The learned Counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that the fili