M/S. DHODHA HOUSE versus S.K. MAINGI

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 751 · Decided: 15-12-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.P. SINGH

Judgment (excerpt)

M/S. DHODHA HOUSE 
A 
v. 
S.K. MAINGI 
DECEMBER 15, 2005 
[B.P. SINGH AND S.B. SINHA, JJ .] 
B 
Copyright Act, 1957/Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958: 
Section 62(2)/Section 45(2)(m)-Territorial jurisdiction of court-Suit 
for infringement of copyright and trade marks-Provisions of sub-section (2) C 
of Section 62 of 1957 Act claimed to be applicable for invoking jurisdiction 
of Court-The Court in which suit was filed having no jurisdiction in terms 
of 1958 Act-Held, primary ground upon which jurisdiction of court was 
invoked was violation of 1958 Act, but in relation thereto provision of sub-
section (2) of Section 62 of 1957 Act could not be invoked-For registration D 
of trade mark an application has to be filed-An advertisement in a journal 
or newspaper by itself would not confer any jurisdiction on a court if it 
otherwise did not have any-Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-Sections 9 and 
20, Order /I Rule 3. 
Words and Phrases: 
Expressions "carries on business" and "personally works for gain" 
occurring in Section 62(2) of Copyright Act, 1957-Connotation of 
Appellant in Civil Appeal No. 6298of1997 was carrying on business 
E 
of sweetmeats at Ghaziabad. It claimed to have trade mark registration as 
"Dhodha House" under Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 as also F 
copyright registered under the Copyright Act, 1957. It filed a suit in the civil 
court, Ghaziabad against the respondent, who was carrying on similar business 
at Faridkot, alleging infringement of its copyright, trademarks and common 
law rights as regards its art work/label/trade marks and wrapper. The trial 
court granted an ad interim injunction. But, the High Court held that the G 
trial court had no territorial jurisdiction to try the suit Aggrieved, the plaintiff 
filed the appeal. 
Respondent in Civil Appeal No. 16of1999 was carrying on business in 
diesel engines at Rajkot in the State of Gujarat. It claimed to have registered 
751 
H 
752 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A a trade mark 'Field Marshal'; as also its label 'Field Marshal' under the 
Copyright Act, 1957. It filed a suit in the Delhi High Court against the 
defendant-appellants, who were also carrying on a similar business in the 
same city of Rajkot, on the ground that the goods manufactured by the 
defendants were being sold in Delhi with plaintifrs trade mark; that the 
B defendants proposed to start their business in the trading style of 'Field 
Marshal' for the goods of same ki:id and description wherefor caution notice 
had been issued. It was stated that Trade Marks Journals published by Tade 
Marks Registry indicated in respect of applications of the defendants for 
registration of their trademarks as 'Field Marshal' including the Union 
Territory of Delhi. On the basis of these assertions, it was stated that the 
C Delhi High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit: An application for ad 
interim injunction was filed, which was rejected by the Single Judge holding, 
inter alia, that prima facie the plaintiff had failed to show that the Delhi High 
Court had territorial jurisdiction. However, the Division Bench allowed the 
intra-court appeal. Aggrieved, the defendant filed the appeal. 
D 
On the question: whether a suit would be maintainable in a court only 
because it has the jurisdiction to entertain the same in terms of the Copyright 
Act, 1957, although causes of action in terms of both the Copyright Act, .19?7 
and the Trademarks Act, 1958 may be different, 
E 
Dismissing Civil Appeal No. 6248/97 and allowing Civil Appeal No. 16/ 
99, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. For the purpose of invoking the jurisdiction of a court only 
because two causes of action joined in terms of the provisions of the Code of 
Civil Procedure, 1908, the same would not mean that thereby the jurisdiction 
F can be conferred upon a court which had jurisdiction to try only the suit in 
respect of one cause of action and not the other. Recourse to the additional 
forum, however, in a given case, may be taken if both the causes of action 
arise within the jurisdiction of the court which otherwise had the necessary 
jurisdiction to decide all the issues. Order II Rule 3 of the Code provides that 
the plaintiff may unite in the same suit several causes of action against the 
G same defendant, or the same defendants jointly. However, by reason of 
application of Order II Rule 3 of the Code ipso facto would not confer 
jurisdiction upon a court which had none so as to enable it t

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.