M/S. GODREJ SARA LEE LIMITED versus RECKITT BENCKISER AUSTRALIA PTY. LTD. AND ANR.

Citation: [2010] 2 S.C.R. 147 · Decided: 29-01-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ALTAMAS KABIR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2010] 2 S.C.R. 147 
M/S. GODREJ SARA LEE LIMITED 
v. 
RECKITT BENCKISER AUSTRALIA PTY. LTD. AND ANR. 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 996-997 of 2010) 
JANUARY 29, 2010 
[ALTAMAS KABIR AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Design Act, 2000; s. 19 - Jurisdiction- Cancellation of 
registered design by Controller, Kolkata - Appeals filed 
before Delhi High Court - Maintainability of - Held: Cause . C 
of action for the suit arose in Kolkata by virtue of order passed 
by Controller, appeal thereagainst would be maintainable 
before Calcutta High Court under s. 19 of 2000 Act and not 
before Delhi High Court under s.51A of 1911 Act - Design 
Act, 1911 - s.51A - Cause of action. 
D 
· The question which arose for consideration in these 
appe,als was whether Delhi High Court had jurisdiction 
to entertai.n the appeals filed against the. order passed by 
Controller of Patents and Designs, Kolkata cancelling the 
E 
registere.d designs belonging to the appellant. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. Section 51A(1)(a) of the Designs Act, 1911 
provides that at any time after registration of the design, 
F 
an application for cancellation of the registration could 
b~made to the 1High Court on the grounds indicated 
therein. Section 51A(1 )(b) makes an exception and 
provides that within one year from the date of registration 
of the design, an application could be made for G 
cancellation of the registration to the ContrQller on the 
grounds specified in sub-clauses (i) and (ii) of Clause (a). 
Section 51A(2) provides that an appeal from the order of 
the Controller would lie to the High Court. In contrast to 
147 
H 
148 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
the provisions of Section 51A(1 )(a) of the 1911 Act, 
Section 19(1) of the Designs Act, 2000, which also deals 
with cancellation of registration, provides for a petition for 
cancellation of registration of a design to be filed before 
the Controller and not to the High Court. A comparison 
B of the two provisions of two enactments shows that 
under the 2000 Act, the. intention of the Legislature was 
that an application for cancellation of a design would lie 
to the Controller exclusively without the High Court 
having a parallel jurisdiction to entertain such matters. It 
c is also very clear that all the appeals from any order of 
the Controller under Section 19 of the 2000 Act shall lie 
to the High Court. The basic difference, therefore, is that 
while under Section 19 of the 2000 Act, an application for 
cancellation would have to be made to the Controller of 
0 
Designs, under Section 51A of the 1911 Act an application 
could be preferred either to the High Court or within one 
year from the date of registration to the Controller on the 
grounds specified under sub-clauses (i) and (ii) of Clause 
(a) of Section 51A(1 ). Under the 2000 Act, the High Court 
would be entitled to assume jurisdiction only at the 
E appellate stage, whereas under Section 51A of the 1911 
Act the High Court could/itself directly cancel the 
registration. [Paras 19 and 21] [157-G-H; 158-A-G-H; 159-
A-E] 
F 
Girdharilal Gupta v. Mis. K. Gian Chand Jain & Co. 
(1978) 14 D.L.T. 132 - held inapplicable. 
Mis. Scooters India Ltd. v. Mis. Jaya Hind Industries Ltd 
& Anr. AIR 1988 Delhi 82; Ambika Industries v. 
G Commissioner of Central Excise (2007) 6 SCC 769; Canon 
Steels (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (2007) 14 SCC 
464; Mis Metro Plastic Industries (Regd.) v. Mis Galaxy 
Footwear, New Delhi AIR 2000 Delhi 117; Stridewell Leathers 
(P) Ltd. v. Bhankerpur Simbhaoli Beverages (P) Ltd. (1994) 
1 sec 34, referred to. 
H 
GODREJ SARA LEE LTD. v. RECKITT BENCKISER 149 
AUSTRALIA PTY. LTD. 
1.2. In the instant case, the doctrine of cause of A 
action, as understood under Section 20 C.P.C., has been 
imported on the basis of the provisions of Section 51A 
of the Designs Act, 1911, whereas the case of the 
appellant would fall under Section 19 of the Designs Act, 
2000, where the High Court functions as the Appellate 
B 
forum. The cause of action for the instant proceedings 
is most certainly the cancellation of the registered design 
of the appellant which happened in the State of West 
Bengal which gave the Calcutta High Court the 
jurisdiction to deal with the matter. The Delhi High Court c 
erred in holding that the cause of action had arisen within 
its local jurisdiction, whereas the jurisdiction of the High 
Court was on account of the cancellation of registration 
of the design and not on ac
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.