ORDER

The issue that arises for consideration in this matter is whether this Court is having the territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate this suit and if so, whether the plaintiff is entitled for an order of interim injunction as prayed for in this application.

2. The plaintiff claims to be a franchisee under the first defendant, running a restaurant in London in the name of "Anjappar", which is a registered trademark owned by the first defendant. According to the plaintiff, as per the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated 19.10.2022 entered into between the plaintiff and the first defendant, Madras High Court is vested with the exclusive jurisdiction to decide any dispute arising out of the MoU. The issue raised by the plaintiff is that the defendants have committed breach of contract by attempting to set up a restaurant in London within the radius of 150 Kms from the plaintiff's restaurant in London, i.e., at 69 High Street, Ilford IG6 2AF, London or at 262 Northholt Road, South Harrow, Harrow HA2 8HF, London, in the same name "Anjappar". Under the aforementioned circumstances, the suit has been filed.

3. The plaintiff relies upon a clause in the MOU, which prohibits such an attempt being made by the first defendant. The plaintiff claims that the first defendant being the partnership firm which had entered into a franchisee agreement with the plaintiff and the defendant Nos.2 and 4, who are its partners, are jointly and severally liable to redress the grievance of the plaintiff.

4. On the other hand, the defendant Nos.1 and 2, as seen from the counter to O.A.No.963 of 2023, would categorically contend as follows:

a) This Court does not have territorial jurisdiction to decide the suit, since the right is sought to be established by the plaintiff in respect of immovable properties in London;

b) The suit is a suit for land as the property for which the relief is sought by the plaintiff is in London, which is situated outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court;

c) Clause XII of the Letters Patent enables this Court to exercise jurisdiction only when a property which is the subject matter of dispute is located within the local original territorial jurisdiction of this Court; d) Section 20 of C.P.C., which deals with the part of cause of action principle, has no applicability to this Court in view of Section 120 of C.P.C., which makes Section 16, 17 and 20 of C.P.C. inapplicable to the original side of this Court;

e) The two prayers in the suit have been combined into a single prayer in the interim application. If the interim injunction is granted, it would amount to the suit being decreed at the interlocutory stage, which is legally impermissible;

f) Interim injunction cannot be granted as per the provisions of Section 41 (d) of the Specific Relief Act when damages is an effective alternate remedy;

g) A perusal of the pleadings in the plaint and the application do not make out any case for an urgent interim relief and therefore, Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 which mandates pre-suit mediation has not been complied with;

h) Prima-facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable hardship have not been established by the plaintiff for the grant of interim injunction as prayed for in this application.

5. The defendant Nos.3 and 4 have filed separate counter affidavits, and they would contend as follows:

a) They have adopted the contentions of the defendant Nos.1 and 2 with regard to the non-maintainability of the suit before this Court due to lack of territorial jurisdiction;

b) The defendant Nos.3 and 4 are the registered holders of the trademark, known as "Anjappar Authentic Chettinad Restaurant" having obtained the registration before the London Trademark Registry;

c) The defendant Nos.3 and 4 alone are the competent persons to enter into any franchisee agreement. The alleged MOU which is the subject matter of this dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant Nos.1 and 2 was entered into by the defendant No.2 alone