2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 3111

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE GURMEET SINGH SANDHAWALIAHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN CHANDER NEGI
SAFEX CHEMICALS PVT LTD – Appellant
Versus
SML LIMITED – Respondent
COMAP/2/2025

For grant of interim injunction, court must prima facie satisfy territorial jurisdiction based on plaint and defendant's material; mere invoices of sales by unauthorized dealer not sufficient to show infringement by defendant within jurisdiction.

Headnote:(A) Patents Act, 1970 - Sections 48 and 108 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Sections 19, 20(c), Order 7 Rule 10, Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 - Essential Commodities Act, 1955 - Fertilizer (Control) Order 1985 - Trademarks Act, 1999 - Sections 28, 29, 134(2).

(B) Territorial Jurisdiction - Grant of interim injunction - Court must prima facie satisfy itself of jurisdiction even at interim stage - Mere averments in plaint not sufficient; court must consider defendant's material as well - Distinction between jurisdiction under Order 7 Rule 10 (return of plaint) and under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 - For interim injunction, plaintiff must demonstrate credible apprehension based on fair and authentic transactions - Single trap purchase by an unauthorized dealer cannot confer jurisdiction if no connection to defendant is pleaded or proved - Section 19 CPC applies to suits for compensation for wrongs to person or movables - In patent infringement, a single act of selling, offering for sale, or importing within jurisdiction may violate patentee's rights under Section 48, but must be attributable to the defendant's own acts or those of its authorized agents. (Paras 23, 24, 30, 33, 34, 37, 40, 42)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiff (respondent No.1) filed a suit for patent infringement against defendant No.1 (respondent No.2) and defendant No.2 (appellant). The appellant is located outside the territorial jurisdiction, but plaintiff claimed it carries on business within jurisdiction. Plaintiff relied on four invoices showing sale of the infringing product 'Aladdin' by defendant No.1 within the court's jurisdiction. The appellant denied authorization to sell in the state and contended that defendant No.1 was not its authorized dealer. The learned Single Judge confirmed an ex-parte ad-interim injunction against the appellant, inter alia, on the finding that the appellant had a manufacturing unit within jurisdiction. On appeal, the Division Bench summoned the proprietor of defendant No.1, who admitted he had no authorization to sell the infringing product and had purchased it from a dealer in another state where the appellant was authorized. The court found no pleading or document to show that the appellant manufactured or sold the product within jurisdiction; the manufacturing unit belonged to a different entity.

Findings of Court:
The appeal was allowed. The court held that prima facie there was no cause of action within the territorial jurisdiction against the appellant. The alleged infringing sales were by an unauthorized dealer who procured the product from outside the jurisdiction. The invoices did not show any connection between the appellant and the sales. The finding of a manufacturing unit within jurisdiction was erroneous. Therefore, the interim injunction against the appellant was vacated, leaving it open for the learned Single Judge to consider additional material at trial.

Issues: 1. Whether the court had territorial jurisdiction to grant an interim injunction against the appellant based on the alleged infringement through sales by defendant No.1? 2. Whether a single trap purchase by an unauthorized dealer can confer jurisdiction over the manufacturer?

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that for the purpose of granting interim injunction, the court must record prima facie satisfaction of jurisdiction. Such satisfaction must be based not only on plaint averments but also on the defendant's material, especially when jurisdiction is disputed. Where the only evidence of infringement within jurisdiction are invoices of sales by a third party who is not an authorized dealer or agent of the defendant, and there is no pleading or proof that the defendant authorized such sales, the court cannot assume jurisdiction. The defendant's own acts of manufacturing, marketing, or selling must occur within the jurisdiction to give rise to a cause of action. The mere possibility of a trap purchase by an unauthorized entity does not satisfy the requirement of a fair and authentic transaction.

Result: Appeal allowed. Impugned interim order dated 06.06.2025, passed in OMP No.320/23 in COMS No.6/2026, insofar as it pertains to appellant/defendant No.2, stands vacated.