IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2941 of 2026 ==========================================================

JAGANNATH SALT PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS.

Versus ANKUR CHEMFOOD LIMITED ==========================================================

Appearance:

MR KRISHNAKANT R RAVAL(12694) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3,4 MR. ARJUN S. PATEL(16438) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3,4 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY Date : 12/03/2026

ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.

2. This petition invoking the extraordinary supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the two separate orders, both dated 26.12.2025, passed by the Judge, Commercial Court, namely Additional District Judge at Gandhidham, Kachchh rejecting two applications Exh. 14 and Exh. 16 filed under Order VII Rule 10 and Order VII Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; respectively.

3. Challenging the orders impugned, it is vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that composite suit for infringement of trademark and passing off action against the defendants-petitioners herein has been filed within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court at Gandhidham, Kachchh, whereas no cause of action for seeking relief of passing off action against the defendant arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the said Court. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner placing Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 would vehemently submit that the said provision expands the territorial jurisdiction of the Court qua Clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section(1) of Section 134, where the reliefs for infringement of a registered trademark or any right relating to a registered trademark has been claimed. However, with regard to Clause(c) of sub-section(1) of Section 134 for passing off arising out of the use by the defendant of any trademark, whether registered or unregistered, sub-section(2) of Section 134, cannot be invoked to confer jurisdiction upon the Court where no such action had been caused.

5. The reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex Court in Dhodha House and Ors. v/s. S.K.Maingi and Ors. decided on 15.12.20005 (Civil Appeal Nos. 6248 of 1997 and 16 of 1999) and the decision of the Delhi High Court in Dabur India Limited v/s. K.R.Industries (MANU/DE/4206/2006) to submit that in the similar facts and circumstances, as of the present case, the Apex Court and the Delhi High Court have held that composite suit for infringement and passing off action, cannot be maintained in the territorial jurisdiction of the concerned Court, where passing off action does not fall within the territorial jurisdiction of the said Court.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the cases, in which both the aforesaid decisions have been rendered by the Apex Court and the Delhi High Court, we find that the ratio of the law laid down therein cannot be applied to the facts and circumstances of the present case.

7. The present is a case wherein there is no dispute about the fact that the Court at Gandhidham, Kachchh has territorial jurisdiction qua the action of infringement, in view of Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. In so far as the passing off action is concerned, the Commercial Court has rightly recorded that the cause of action with respect to the said relief involves inquiry into a bundle of facts that can only be proved during the course of trial after the entire evidence have been produced.

8. On a query posed by the Court as to how the reliefs of infringement and passing off can be split up to maintain the suits in two different Courts, inasmuch as, the Court at Gandhidham, Kachchh, admittedly, has territorial jurisdiction to try the suit for action of