LexINDIAN PERFORMING RIGHTS SOCIETY LTD. versus SANJAY DALIA&ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2015] 8 S.C.R. 210 A INDIAN PERFORMING RIGHTS SOCIETY LTD. B v. SANJAY DALIA&ANR. (Civil Appeal Nos. 10643-10644 of 2010) JULY01, 2015 [JAG DISH SINGH KHEHAR AND ARUN MISHRA, JJ.] Jurisdiction - Territorial jurisdiction - Determination c of-In view of s.62 of Copyright Act and s.134 of Trade Marks Act- Held: Accrual of cause of action is sine qua non for a suit to be filed- s. 20 of CPC provides institution of suit where the cause of action arises - s. 62 and 134 only provide for an additional forum - The provisions uls. 62 and 134 have to be D interpreted in a purposive manner - The interpretation has to be such which prevents the mischief of causing inconvenience to parties - The mischief or defect of inconvenience I deterrence to the plaintiff in the existing law (s.20 CPC) was sought to be removed bys. 62 and 134 - E The avoidance of counter mischief to the defendant is also necessary while giving relief to the plaintiff- Such a counter- mischief was unforeseen by Parliament- It is court's duty to mitigate the counter-mischief - Right to approach the legal remedy cannot be made farce or oppressive - Thus, if the F plaintiff is residing or carrying on business etc. at a place where cause of action, wholly or in part, has also arisen, he has to file suit at that place - In the present case, since the principal place of business of the plaintiff was Mumbai and cause of action also arose there, the provisions of ss. 62 and G 134 would not confer jurisdiction an Delhi Court, just because the plaintiff had his branch office in Delhi - Copyright Act, 1957-s.62- Trade Marks Act, 1999-s.134- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - s.20 - Interpretation of Statutes - H Administration of Justice. 210 INDIAN PERFORMING RIGHTS SOCIETY LTD. v. SANJAY 211 DALIA&ANR. lnterprtation of Statutes: Heydon's Mischief rule - Discussed. Words and Phrases - 'Cause of action' - Meaning of - Discussed. Dismissing the appeals, the Court A B HELD: 1. The provisions of section 62 of the Copyright Act and section 134 of the Tr.;de Marks Act have to be interpreted in the purposive manner. No C doubt that a suit can be filed by the plaintiff at a place where he is residing or carrying on business or personally works for gain. He need not travel to file a suit to a place where defendant is residing or cause of action wholly or in part arises. However, if the plaintiff is D residing or carrying on business etc. at a place where cause of action, wholly or in part, has also arisen, he has to file a suit at that place. [Para 47] [261-G-H; 262-A] 2. By section 62 of the Copyright Act and section E 134 of the Trade Marks Act, an additional forum has been provided by including a District Court within whose limits the plaintiff actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain. The object of the provisions was to enable the plaintiff to institute a suit at F a place where he or they resided or carried on business, and not to enable them to drag defendant further away from such a place. [Para 12] [228-E-F] ExpharSA &Anr. v. Eupharma Laboratories Ltd. &Anr. G 2004 (3) sec 688 - referred to. 3. The expression "notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure" does not oust the applicability of the provisions of section 20 of CPC H 212 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015) 8 S.C.R. A and it is clear that additional remedy has been provided to the plaintiff so as to file a suit where he is residing or carrying on business etc., as the case may be. Section 20 of CPC enables a plaintiff to file a suit where the defendant resides or where cause of action arose. B Section 20(a) and section 20(b) usually provides the venue where the defendant or any of them resides, carries on business or personally works for gain. Section 20(c) of CPC enables a plaintiff to institute a suit where the cause of action wholly or in part, arises. [Para 12] C [228-G-H; 229-A-B] 4. The intendment of the Explanation to section 20 of CPC is that once the corporation has a subordinate office in the place where the cause of action arises wholly D or in part, it cannot be heard to say that it cannot be sued there because it did not carry on business at that place. The linking of the place with the cause of action in the Explanation where subordinate office of the corporation is situated is reflective of the intention of the Legislature E and such a place has to be th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.