The boundaries defined..Let the ball roll not beyond.
Recently, the Supreme Court of India in The Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd V. Sanjay Dalia and Another (2015) 42 SCD 753 held that the Plaintiffs cannot harp on the provisions of Section 134 f the Trade Marks Act 1999 and Section 62 of Copy Right Act 1957, surpassing the provisions of Section 20 of Code of Civil Procedure and to interpret it in such a way to fix the territorial jurisdiction of filing the plaints so as to harass the defendants to made them to travel a long for litigation.
The Supreme Court observed that intention of Legislature was that the Plaintiff should not go far flung places than that of residence or where he carries on business or works for gain in order to deprive defendant a remedy and harass him by dragging to a distant place. If such an interpretation is permitted, the abuse of the provision will take place as the Corporations and big conglomerates might be having several subordinate offices throughout the country.
Therefore, it is clarified that if the plaintiff carries on business or has his principle place of business or works for gain at a place where cause of action also arose, the plaintiff has to file the suit at that place and not at its branch office in a different location.
Recently, the Supreme Court of India in The Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd V. Sanjay Dalia and Another (2015) 42 SCD 753 held that the Plaintiffs cannot harp on the provisions of Section 134 f the Trade Marks Act 1999 and Section 62 of Copy Right Act 1957, surpassing the provisions of Section 20 of Code of Civil Procedure and to interpret it in such a way to fix the territorial jurisdiction of filing the plaints so as to harass the defendants to made them to travel a long for litigation.
The Supreme Court observed that intention of Legislature was that the Plaintiff should not go far flung places than that of residence or where he carries on business or works for gain in order to deprive defendant a remedy and harass him by dragging to a distant place. If such an interpretation is permitted, the abuse of the provision will take place as the Corporations and big conglomerates might be having several subordinate offices throughout the country.
Therefore, it is clarified that if the plaintiff carries on business or has his principle place of business or works for gain at a place where cause of action also arose, the plaintiff has to file the suit at that place and not at its branch office in a different location.
No comments:
Post a Comment