LexM/S. PARAGON RUBBER INDUSTRIES versus M/S. PRAGATHI RUBBER MILLS & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2013] 17 S.C.R. 786 M/S. PARAGON RUBBER INDUSTRIES v. M/S. PRAGATHI RUBBER MILLS & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 10745 of 2013) NOVEMBER 29, 2013 [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR AND A.K.SIKRI, JJ.] Suit - Composite suit - Maintainability - . Suit filed under Copyrights Act, 1957 and Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, C 1958 - In the district court at Kottayam in the State of Kera/a - Territorial jurisdiction of the court challenged - Held: A composite suit would not be maintainable, unless the court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit in relation to the entire cause of action and the entire relief - Jn the instant case, the D suit was composite and the court at Kottayam had no jurisdiction under 1958 Act - However, the High Court in exercise of its discretionary powers, was right in directing amendment of the suit, to avoid multiplicity of litigation. The plaintiff filed a suit before to District Court at E Kottayam .in the State of Kerela, against the defendants claiming relief under the Copyrights Act, 1957 and also under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. The defendant filed application u/Or. VII r. XI CPC, seeking rejection of the plaint for want of territorial jurisdiction. F Trial court rejected the application observing that issue of jurisdiction would be decided at the final stage of the suit. Rejection of application was challenged before High Court, who directed the trial court to determine issue of territorial jurisdiction. The trial court decided the issue G and held that the court had the jurisdiction to entertain the suit in view of s.62(2) of 1957 Act. The order was carried to High Court, who set aside the order passed by the trial court holding that a composite suit would not be H 786 PARAGON RUBBER INDUSTRIES v. PRAGATHI 787 RUBBER MILLS maintainable, and gave liberty to amend the plaint so as A to make the suit maintainable before the District Court, Kottayam. Hence the plaintiff filed appeal before this Court challenging the order of High Court. The defendant also filed appeal to this Court challenging the order of High Court permitting the plaintiff to amend the B plaint. Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. The averments in the plaint itself make it abundantly clear that even the plaintiff was aware that the c court at Kottayam will have no jurisdiction under the 1958 Act, but tried to camouflage the same by confusing it and mixing it up or intermingling it with the relief contained under the 1957 Act. From the averments made in the · plaint, it is apparent that the plaintiff had filed a composite 0 suit. Such a suit would not be maintainable unless the court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit in relation to the entire cause of action and the entire relief. [Para 15] [794-F-G] Dhodha House vs. S.K.Maingi (2006) 9 SCC 41: 2005 E (5) Suppl. SCR751; Dabur India Ltd. vs. K.R.lndustries (2008) 10 sec 595: 2008 (9) SCR 652 - relied on. 2. There is no conflict in the ratio of law laid down in Dabur India case and Dhodha House case. In both the cases it has been held that for the purpose of invoking F the jurisdiction of the court in a composite suit, both the causes of action must arise within the jurisdiction of the court which otherwise had the necessary jurisdiction to decide all the issues. However, the jurisdiction cannot be conferred by joining two causes of action in the same suit G when the court has jurisdiction to try the suit only in respect of one cause of action and not the other. There is also no conflict between the law laid down in Dabur India case and Exphar SA case. [Paras 19 and 20] [796- G-H; 797-E] H 788 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 17 S.C.R. A Dhodha House vs. S.K.Maingi (2006) 9 SCC 41: 2005 (5) Suppl. SCR 751; Dabur India Ltd. vs. KR.Industries (2008) 10 SCC 595: 2008 (9) SCR 652; Exphar SA vs. Eupharma Laboratories Ltd. (2004) 3 SCC 688 - referred to. 8 3. The High Court has correctly held that the provision contained in Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 would not come to the aid of the plaintiff. Although, the 1999 Act was enacted on 30th December, 1999, it came into force on 15th September, 2003 vide S.O. 1048(E), dated 15th September, 2003, published in the C Gazette of India, Extra., Pt. II, Sec. 3(1i), dated 15th September, 2003. Since the suit in this case was filed on 19th March, 2001, it wquld be adjudicated under the 1958 Act. The 1958 Act does not contain a
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.