Interim Order 8

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: CS (COMM) 1107/25
Dayanand Anglo-Vedic College Trust and Management Society and
Anr. Vs. Lala Arjun Das Memorial DAV Public School
14.07.2026
Present:- Sh. Milind Srivastav, Advocate for plaintiff.
Sh. Rahul Kumar and Sh. Tarandeep Singh,
Advocates for defendant.
Previous cost not paid by defendant. Learned counsel
for defendant submits that he would pay the cost today on the mobile
number of learned counsel for plaintiff linked with UPI.
Written statement filed on behalf of defendant.
Arguments on application under order VII rule 10 CPC
heard.
It is submitted by learned Sh. Rahul Kumar that this
court has no territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present
suit as entire cause of action has arisen in Punjab, outside the
jurisdiction of this court. Learned Sh. Rahul Kumar has also
submitted that as per the claim in plaint, plaintiff operates
nationwide including in Punjab, therefore, the plaintiff must be
having its office in Punjab and as per the judgment of the Hon’ble
High Court of Delhi in the case of Ultra Home Construction Pvt Ltd
VS Purushottam Kumar Chaubey & Ors, FAO (OS) 494/2015 &
CM 17816/2015 decided on 20.01.2016, the plaintiff, by taking
benefit of section 134 (2) of Trademarks Act 1999, cannot file the
suit in the jurisdiction where its principle office is situated, if it has a
subordinate office in the jurisdiction where cause of action has
arisen.
Arguments considered. Record perused.
During course of arguments, this court has specifically
asked learned Sh. Rahul Kumar to point out where the subordinate
-- 1 of 3 --
office of the plaintiff is situated in Punjab or otherwise. Learned Sh.
Rahul Kumar has stated that plaintiff is operating in Punjab and in
other States of India. This court is of the humble opinion that merely
operating in a particular place, do not mandate that a subordinate
office of the plaintiff is also situated in the said place.
The corresponding paragraph no.15 of the plaint about
the territorial jurisdiction is extracted herein below :-
“
15. That the plaintiffs have their registered office in
Central District, Delhi. The Trade Marks in question was registered
by the plaintiffs with the Registrar of Trade Marks having office at
Delhi, part of cause of action to file the present suit has also arisen
in Delhi. That the plaintiffs do not have any other office/branch
office (s) in any other state of India and all the affairs of the schools,
run, managed or affiliated to the plaintiffs are carried out by the
plaintiffs from their office in Delhi. That as such this Hon’ble Court
has jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit.”
It has to be kept in mind that the application under
order VII rule 10 or VII rule 11 CPC are required to be decided on
the basis of pleadings in plaint. Plaintiff has specifically stated that it
has no other office/branch office in any other State of India and all
the affairs of the Schools run, manage or affiliated to the plaintiff are
carried out by plaintiff from their registered office at Delhi, within
the jurisdiction of this court.
Neither any subordinate office or other office is spelled
in the application nor particulars of any such office are told during
the arguments.
At this stage, when the plaintiff has specifically
mentioned that it has no other branch or office in any other place in
India, court cannot buy the submissions of learned Sh. Rahul Kumar
that merely because the plaintiff is operating at Punjab, it has to be
presumed that it has a subordinate office at that place.
-- 2 of 3 --
It is rightly submitted by learned Sh. Milind Srivastav
that otherwise also in Kohinoor Seed Fields India Pvt Ltd Vs Veda
Seed Sciences Pvt Ltd, FAO (OS) (COMM) 66/2025, decided on
03.12.2025, Hon’ble High Court of Delhi has categorically observed
:-
20.5 With greatest respect to the
learned Authors of the judgment of the Division
Bench in Ultra Home Construction, we have
some reservations regarding the correctness of
this proposition, as exposited in para 14 of the
said decision. To our mind, Section 134 of the
Trade Marks Act confers an absolute right on a
plaintiff to sue the defendant at the place where
the plaintiff has its principal office of business.
To hold that, even if the plaintiff has its
principal office of business at place A, it has to
sue the defendant at place B where it has its
subordinate office of business, because the cause
of action has arisen at place B, would, in our
view, be re-writing Section 134 of the Trade
Marks Act, which a Court cannot do.
Hence, it can be safely said that plaintiff can institute
the suit where the registered office of the plaintiff is situated.
Application under order VII rule 10 CPC appears to be
a device to delay the proceedings. Same is accordingly dismissed.
At request of learned Sh. Rahul Kumar, matter be put
up for arguments on application under order 39 rule 1 & 2 CPC on
13.08.2026.
(Ajay Pandey)
District Judge (Commercial Court-10)
Central, Tis Hazari,14.07.2026
-- 3 of 3 --