1. Plaintiff seeks a permanent and ad-interim injunction against defendants for alleged patent infringement relating to an agricultural composition, claiming unlawful sales of the infringing product within the territorial jurisdiction. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 8773
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
OMP No. 324 of 2023 in COMS No. 7 of 2023
Order reserved on: 15.09.2026
Date of Decision: 15.10.2026
Uploaded on: October 15, 2026
SML Limited …….Applicant/plaintiff
Versus
Mohan & Company and Anr. … Respondents/Defendants
Coram: u Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? 1
For the Applicant: Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, Senior Advocate with Dr. Sanjay Kumar, Ms. Arpita Sawhney, Mr. Atul Jhingan, Mr. Priyansh Sharma, Mr. Ankit h T A h d a v k o u c r a tes a . n d Mr. Sanket Singh Sengar,
For the Respondents: Mr. Ashil Bhushan, Advocate vice Mr. Rajesh Kashyap, Advocate for Defendant No. 1.i Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Senior Advocate with Ms.H Shradha Karol and Mr. Vaibhav Singh Chauhan Defendant No. 2.
(Sandeep Sharma),
Judge
October 15, 2026
(vikrant/sunandini)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Plaintiff asserts exclusive rights and infringement under the Patents Act, while defendants contest the court's territorial jurisdiction, arguing that isolated purchases are fabricated to manufacture cause of action. (Para 5 , 6 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 )
3. The court found no evidence of authorized sales or commercial distribution by the defendant within its territorial limits, concluding that the alleged transactions were likely staged to create jurisdiction. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 )
4. Isolated or trap purchases by a plaintiff do not confer territorial jurisdiction upon a court unless the defendant is shown to be commercially exercising its activities within that jurisdiction. (Para 23 , 24 )
5. The application for interim injunction is dismissed due to lack of territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit and decide the merits of the patent infringement claim. (Para 25 , 26 )
6. Can territorial jurisdiction be established solely via isolated trap purchases by an interested party?
No. Mere isolated trap purchases or lack of evidence showing authorized commercial distribution by the defendant within the jurisdiction are insufficient to confer territorial authority upon the court. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 )
7. Does mere accessibility of a website within a region constitute a basis for establishing territorial jurisdiction?
No. Mere accessibility of a website within a court's jurisdiction does not establish purposeful availment or jurisdiction in the absence of evidence of actual commercial transactions executed through the website within that specific territory. (Para 22 )
8. How does the standard of proof for territorial jurisdiction differ between an application under Order VII Rule 10 and Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2?
Under Order VII Rule 10, the court primarily examines the plant's averments. Conversely, under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2, the court evaluates both the plaint and the defendant's response to determine if the plaintiff has established a reasonable, credible prima-facie case for jurisdiction. (Para 23 )
Sandeep Sharma, Judge
Order at hand shall dispose of an application filed by the applicant/plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking therein direction to restrain the defendants by themselves, their directors, partners, licensees, stockiest1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? and distributors, agents and /or anyone claiming through any of t.hem jointly and severally from infringing the patent rights of the applicant under Indian Patent No. 282092 by advertising, launching, m.aking, using, offering for sale, selling, importing and/or exporting any product including “ZeekaSulfTM ” or any other product covered by th e suit patent IN 282092 granted in March 30, 2017 to the Applicaont/ Plaintiff.
2. Afore prayer made on behalf of the applicant/plaintiff has been seriously opposed by the defrendant no. 2 by filing detailed reply to the application. Before ascuertaining the correctness of the rival contentions raised at the behest of the parties to the lis, this Court finds it necessary to take note of certain facts, which may be relevant for adjudication of the application at hand, which reads as under:
ha. The Applicant/Plaintiff, which is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, claims itself to be a research-driven organization involved in developing and promoting the use of i advanced high-performance, end to end solutions in crop nutrition, H crop protection, bio-stimulants and bio-fertilizers, with a turnover of around INR 1464 crores for FY 2022-23.
b. Plaintiff is owner of various patents inter alia Indian Patent No.282092, which was granted to the plaintiff on 30.03.2017 under Section 43 of the Patents Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), for agricultural composition entitled “Agricultural Composition” for twenty years. Plaintiff also claims to have received rights qua suit patent through assignment agreement from one Mr. Deepak Pranjivandas Shah.
c. It is also averred in the application that as many as 13 coun.tries have granted corresponding patents in respect of suit Ppatent. As per the plaintiff, while its prayer for grant of patent in question was being considered no pre or post grant oppoHsitions were filed by defendants.
d. Two entities had filed pre-grant oppositions under Section 25(1) of the Act, however, same were dismfissed vide order dated 30.03.2017. Thereafter, two posto-grant oppositions under Section 25(2) of Act were filed by two entities, which were also dismissed on 16.06.2023.
t e. Defendant no. 1 is an ragricultural store primarily engaged in retail sale of agriculturual products in Tehsil Theog. Defendant no. 1 has not filed reply to written statement as well as reply to applications, including inostant application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2, CPCC. Vide Affidavit dated 23.03.2024, Defendant No. 1 has tendered unconditional apology, while undertaking that he will not s ell the impugned product in the future.
hf. Defendant no. 2 is an agrochemical company engaged in the business of manufacturing, distributing and marketing of a wide range of agro chemical formulations such as insecticides, i fungicides, herbicides, plant growth regulators, micro fertilizers and H antibiotic.
g. It is alleged by Defendant no. 2 that company was established in2015 and exports its products to more than 20 countries. Defendant no. 2 claimed that it has obtained 527 registrations for agrochemical formulations from the Central Insecticide Board and Registration Committee, out of which 295 agrochemical formulations are for sale in India and exports, 219 agrochemical formulations are exclusively for exports and 13 registrations for technical formulations.
h. Plaintiff has alleged that infringing acts on the part of defendant.s by offering to sell the suit patent under the brand name, “ZeekaSulfTM”and thus alleged infringement of rights of the plaintiff qua the suit patent. With the
