1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard finally.
2. Since a common issue of transfer of Suit Nos. 6 of 2011, 7 of 2011 and 8 of 2011, pending before the District Court, Kopargaon to the District Court at Nagpur, is involved in these Misc. Civil Applications, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. Misc. Civil Application No. 28 of 2012 is filed for transfer of Suit Nos. 7 of 2011 and 8 of 2011 and Misc. Civil Application No.29 of 2012 is filed for transfer of Suit No. 6 of 2011. All these three suits are instituted by the respondent No.1 in these Misc. Civil applications against the applicants, before the District Court, Kopargaon.
3. (a) It is the case of the applicants that the applicants are the private limited companies duly registered under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956 and also successfully carries on business as distillers, manufacturers and sellers of country liquor, likewise, its products âHINDIâ and âHINDIâ form the subject of the controversy involved. It is further case of the applicants that, respondent No.2 is a private limited company incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956 and it also carries on business as distillers, manufacturers and sellers of country liquor. Its product named âHINDI 999â is the subject of another similar controversy.
(b) Respondent No.1 is a Co-operative society, registered under the provisions of Bombay Co-operative Societies Act 1925, which carries on business as distilleries, manufacturers and sellers of country liquor. Its product named âHINDIâ is the matter involved in several trademarks, copyrights and âpassing ofâ suits, which has led the applicants herein to file application for transfer.
(c) It is the case of the applicants that, respondent No.1 has filed suit for infringement of Copyright, Trademark and passing off against respondent No.2 before the learned District Judge, Kopargaon vide R.C.S. No. 1 of 2009. The basic contention in the said suit was that the acts of respondent No.2 herein of manufacturing and selling of product viz. âHINDI 5000â amounted to infringement of Trademark, Copyright and passing off, as it was attempted to confuse in the minds of the public, the said product with âHINDIâ manufactured and sold by respondent No.1. In the said suit, respondent No.2 herein filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 for rejection of plaint/dismissal of suit on the ground that, primarily, there is no cause of action as the suit was filed with malafide intention and ulterior motive. The learned District Judge allowed the said application with observation that the respondents products were not sold within the jurisdiction of the District Court, Kopargaon and cause of action arose within territorial jurisdiction of District Court Nagpur and thus, it was not competent to hear the matter relating to âpassing offâ. The learned District Judge vide order dated 7.12.2009, was pleased to return the plaint to respondent No.1 i.e. original plaintiff, to be filed before the Copyright Forum which in the case of respondent No.2, is at Nagpur. The applicants have placed on record a copy of Civil Suit No. 1 of 2009 filed by respondent No.1 against respondent No.2 before the District Court at Kopargaon and order passed thereon by the concerned Court on 7.12.2009 thereby returning the plaint to be presented before the appropriate forum.
(d) Accordingly, respondent No.1 herein instituted proceeding before the District Judge-4, Nagpur vide T.M. Suit No. 5 of 2010 against respondent No.2. It is further case of the applicants that respondent No.2 herein made a statement that there are certain other manufacturers involved in the manufacture and sale of country liquor, which have products with similar identical label, and that case may be decided in the light of those other labels. It is further case of the applicants that in consequence to the reply filed by respondent No.2, in T.M. Suit No.5 of 2010, respondent No.1 herein proceeded ahead to file similar suits viz. Suit No.6 of 2011, Suit No. 7 of 2011 and Suit No. 8 of 2011 for infringement of Trade Mark and Copyrights in case of applicants. However, respondent no.1 in the said suits has refrained from suing for the alleged acts of âpassing offâ so as to be able to file the suit before the learned District Judge, Kopargaon. The applicants have placed on record copy of Suits filed by respondent No.1 for perusal.
4. (a) Learned senior counsel appearing for the applicants submit that, the bone of contention in the suit filed by respondent No.1 against the applicants and the suit filed against respondent No.2 is the same. The issues involved in the suits are absolutely identical and the allegations therein are also same. If the attention drawn towards the plaints, the wordings and the contents in all four suits is verbatim. It is the same suit but only against different defendants. The possibility of conflicting conclusions being reached at by the learned District Court, Nagpur and the District Court at Kopargaon cannot be ruled out and which in the interest of justice should be avoided. It is submitted that, it is settled principle of law that suit may be transfered from one subordinate court to another, if there exists any possibility of contrary decisions. It is further submitted that the original suit filed by respondent No.1 against respondent No. 2 herein before the learned District Judge, Kopargaon is pending before the District Judge, Nagpur and the two suits later instituted by respondent No.2 against the applicants before the District Judge, Kopargaon are based on the same set of facts and have same allegations made therein, which respondent No.1 is trying to prove. The method of hearing and deciding the matters should therefore, be identical.
(b) It is further submitted that, the decision arrived at are also not differ, as it would only complicate the situation further. The precious time of two courts of the same competence would not have to be spent on the same issue and if contrary decisions are arrived at, it would only lead to another round of unnecessary litigation. The evidence, which would be required to be led would also be same. The fact that one suit of similar nature is pending before the District Court, Nagpur for which appearance would have to be made, in any way, also goes to show that convenience of respondent No.1 would not get affected by such transfer.
(c) It is further submitted that, the matters are identical in totality and if the suits are heard by the same court, it would only simplify the situation as the allegations of respondent No.1 are the same against the applicants and respondent No.2. Whatever the submission of the defendants that, all the suits can be decided on merits and in the light of other rival contentions, the interest of all the parties is likely to be affected by the stand taken by the others. Therefore, it would be in the interest of justice that matter be heard collectively. It is further submitted that what also needs to be taken into consideration is that all the three defendants in the suits filed by respondent No. 1 are stationed at Nagpur and have their registered office at Nagpur. Even the witnesses that would have to be examined are mostly from Nagpur. Thus, the balance of convenience also required that the suit before the District Judge, Kopargaon be transfered to Nagpur. As it is, the original litigation was between respondent No.1 and 2, and the applicants have been roped later in consequence to the statements made by respondent No. 2. It is submitted that this application is filed without prejudice to the rights of respondent No.1 to choose the forum of suing and keeping in mind the fact that the court of District Judge, Nagpur is also competent to hear the matter. It is submitted that keeping in mind the convenience of the parties involved, it would only be appropriate that the suit filed before the District Judge, Kopargaon be transfered to Nagpur. The High Court has wide discretionary powers in the matter and there are several precedents on the point that the possibility of contrary decisions and balance of convenience of all parties involved are established grounds on which a suit may be transferred from one subordinate court to another.
(d) Learned senior counsel further submits that the proceedings taken before the Excise department by the parties at Nagpur would also be indicative of the fact that in the said proceedings, respondent No.1 has caused appearance and contested the said proceedings. Therefore, it is not inconvenient for respondent No.1 to attend the proceeding at Nagpur. Learned senior counsel also submits that the applicants after due permission from the competent authorities and due approval of their Trade Mark are manufacturing âHINDIâ and âHINDIâ. It is further submitted that, only difference in the suit which are instituted against respondent no.2 and present applicants by respondent No.2 herein is that respondent No.1 herein has omitted relief of âpassing offâ in the suits filed against the applicants. It is submitted that, it is only when reply is filed by respondent No.2, it is case of respondent No.1 that respondent No.1 came to know that applicants are also using same label. Therefore, according to the learned senior counsel appearing for the applicants, the suit filed by respondent No.1 against respondent No.2 is pending before the District Court, Nagpur, in the present case also, the prayer of the applicants deserves to be accepted thereby transferring the suit instituted by respondent No.1 before the District Court, Kopargaon to the District Court at Nagpur.
(e) Learned senior counsel appearing for the applicants placed reliance upon exposition of Supreme Court in the case of ChitivalasaJute Mills vs. Jaypee Rewa Cement, reported in (2004) 3 SCC 85 and submitted that if two suits in two courts are instituted at different places, if parties substantially the same in both the suits, cause of action alleged in two plaints referring to the same period and same transaction, same set of evidence needed for determining issues of facts and law which were common, possibility of conflicting decrees cannot be ruled out. Therefore, transfer of later suit directed to the court where the suit earlier in time was filed, is appropriate. Learned senior counsel invited my attention to paras 4 and 9 of the said judgment and submitted that in the facts of the present case as well, the suit Nos. 6 of 2011, 7 of 2011 and 8 of 2011 instituted by respondent No.1 herein against the applicants is later suit. In the said suits, the cause of action alleged is like in suit instituted at Nagpur against respondent No.2. In both the suits, there is similar set of evidence and also witnesses who will be produced by the defendant No.1 will be common.
(f) Learned senior counsel further invited my attention to the reported judgment of the supreme Court in the case of Murray @ Co. Pvt. Ltd. And others vs. Madanlal Poddar and others, reported in (1994 Supp (3) SCC 696) and submitted that the court at Nagpur is most convenient court to try the suits instituted against the applicants by respondent No.1 with the suit instituted against respondent No.2 in the District Court at Nagpur.
(g) Learned senior counsel further pressed into service reported judgment of Andhra Pradesh High court in the case of KanuruBasava Punnarao vs. Puttagunta Nageswara Rao, reported in (CDJ 1999 APHC 881) and in particular paragraphs 3 to 5 of the said judgment. It is submitted that though normally the plaintiff has the right to choose the place of suing and the mere convenience of the defendant or his witnesses cannot be a valid ground for the transfer of the suit, but where the defence in all the suits is practically one and the same and common questions of fact and law arise for decision, to secure the ends of justice and to prevent multiplicity of proceedings and also the possibility of conflicting judgments, Courts have generally held that it is better to have all such suits tried at one place only by the same Court. Ultimately, the question depends on the interest of justice and not convenience of one party or the other.
(h) Learned senior counsel further pressed into service judgment of Kerala High court in the case of District Collector, Kozhikode and Ors. vs. Kerala Verma Kovil Thampuran and Ors. Reported in AIR 1960 Kerala 199 and in particular placed reliance upon paras 1 and 2 of the said judgment, in support of his contention that the suit instituted against respondent No.2 herein by respondent No.1 is pending at Nagpur and later suit instituted against the applicants are required to be transferred before the District Court at Nagpur so as to be tried alongwith the suit instituted against respondent No.2 so as to avoid conflicting decisions on the question involved in both the suits.
(i) Learned senior counsel further placed reliance upon the judgment of Andhra Pradesh High court in the case of The Nellore Arya Vyasya Bullion Merchants and Pawn Brokers Association and Ors vs. K. Bhaskar Rao K. Demullu and others, reported in CDJ 2004 APHC 189 and submitted that apart from causing inconvenience to the parties, the suits are required to be tried collectively so as to avoid conflicting judgment of the same set of facts involved in the suit instituted by respondent No.1 herein against respondent No.2 and the applicants herein. Therefore, relying upon the aforementioned judgments of various High Courts and also the Supreme court and the provisions of Section 20 and 24 of the Civil Procedure Code, learned senior counsel prayed that these applications may be allowed.
(j) Learned senior counsel submits that, the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of DavBoys Senior Secondary School and others vs. Dav College Managing Committee, reported in (2010) 8 SCC 401, that prayer for transfer of case only on the ground of convenience of the party can not be accepted, is not applicable in the facts of the present case. In the present case, transfer of suits is sought mainly on the ground that, if suits are not tried together, in that case, there may be possibility of conflicting decisions by the two Courts, one at Kopargaon and another at Nagpur.
5. (a) On the other hand, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No.1 invited my attention to the averments in the plaint filed before the District Court Kopargaon against the applicants. It is submitted that suit was filed by respondent No.1 against respondent No.2 before the District Court at Kopargaon. However, in the said suit, defendant therein is sued for act of âpassing offâ and therefore, in the facts of that case, the District Court, Kopargaon returned plaint to present before the appropriate Court. However, in the present case, the relief of âpassing offâ has been omitted by the respondent No.1 against the applicants herein. Learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent invited my attention to the averments in the affidavit in reply and submitted that only the District Court at Kopargaon has jurisdiction to try the suit.
(b) It is submitted that the prayer for transfer can be entertained and transfer can be ordered only when both the courts viz. transferor court and transferee court had jurisdiction to hear the case and party seeking transfer of the case alleged that transferee court has jurisdiction. It is submitted that in the present case, only the District Court at Kopargaon had jurisdiction to entertain the suit filed against the respondent No. 1. Learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No.1 invited my attention to provisions of Section 62 of the Copyright Act 1957 and Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act 1999.
(c) It is submitted that the Supreme Court had occasion to interpret the provisions of section 62 of the Copyright Act 1957 vis-a-vis the provisions of Section 20 and Order VII Rules 10 and 11 of C.P.C. in the case of ExpharSa and Anr vs. Eupharma Laboratories Ltd. And Anr reported in AIR 2004 SC 1682, and has taken a view that the suit for infringement of Copyrights filed by the owner of Copyright and his manufacturing agent carrying on business within territorial jurisdiction of Court, rejection of plaint on the ground that agent has not claimed ownership of copyright is held improper. It is held that agent may not be entitled to relief claimed, but he certainly is a person who has instituted suit. The Supreme Court further held that the jurisdiction for the purpose of Section 62 of the Copyright Act is wider than that of the court as prescribed under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908.
(d) Learned senior counsel further invited my attention to the judgment of this court in the case of FerringPharmaceuticals pvt. Ltd. vs. Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries ltd. Reported in 2011 (2) All MR 678 and in particular paras 20 to 22 of the said judgment. Learned senior counsel further pressed into service judgment of this Court in the case of International Association of Lions Club vs. National Association of Indian Lions and ors reported in 2006 (2) Bom. C.R. 18 and in particular paras 12,14, 15 and 16 of the said judgment and submitted that Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act in contradiction to Section 20 of C.P.C. provides for jurisdiction of Courts where plaintiffs are carrying on business and resides and not defendants.
(e) It is submitted that there is no dispute that respondent No. 1 carries on his business within the territorial jurisdiction of District Court at Kopargaon. Learned senior counsel further submitted that the applicants herein had filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. for return/rejection of the plaint and the said application is pending before the District Court at Kopargaon and the present applications are filed for transfer of the suits from District Court, Kopargaon to the District Court, Nagpur. It is submitted that the conduct of the applicants to delay the proceeding is required to be viewed seriously. In fact, they have kept pending their applications under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. before the District Court at Kopargaon and filed present applications for transfer of the suit from the District Court Kopargaon to District Court at Nagpur.
(f) Learned senior counsel invited my attention to the prayers in the suits i.e. the Suit Nos. 6, 7 and 8 of 2011, which are reproduced in para 7 of the affidavit in reply filed by respondent No.1 and submitted that, the prayers are for infringement under the Copyright Act 1957 and the Trade Marks Act 1999. It is submitted that the Parliament was fully aware of the mischief played by the persons like the present applicants as well as the respondent No.2 regarding infringement of Copyrights and Trade Marks and therefore, the Parliament has made the specific provision in Copyright Act namely Section 62 and also the Parliament has amended Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act 1999. It is submitted that upon careful perusal of Section 62 of the Copyright Act 1957 and Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, clearly indicate that in case of infringement of Copyrights, the concerned plaintiff has right to file suit in the Court at Kopargaon and thus the Court has exclusive jurisdiction and no other Court has jurisdiction to entertain the said suit. It is further submitted that the suit is filed in the year 2011. Thereafter, the applicants herein who are original defendants have been taking time in the said suits and prolonging the hearing of the same. It is further submitted that respondent No.2 is not party before the District Court, Kopargaon and therefore, respondent No.2 would not have been added as party respondents in the present applications.
(g) It is submitted that only the Court at Kopargaon having competent jurisdiction and therefore, this Court may not entertain the prayer for transfer of the suits from the District Court, Kopargaon to District Court, Nagpur. It is submitted that the contention of the counsel for the applicants that there is same set of evidence and witnesses are also same in both the suits is not correct and same is disputed by the respondent No. 1. It is submitted that both the suits are different, the witnesses are different, the cause of action is different and therefore, it cannot be said that in the suit instituted by respondent No.1 against respondent No.2 and suit instituted against the applicants herein the issues involved are identical or allegations therein are same.
(h) It is submitted that on reading of averments in the plaint, it is abundantly clear that the averments and relevance are totally different. It is submitted that the relief of âpassing offâ is not prayed in the suit Nos. 6, 7 and 8 of 2011, which are instituted against the applicants. There is no possibility of conflicting decisions by the Courts.
(i) Learned senior counsel further submitted that, the respondent No.1 herein has not only instituted suits against the applicants herein, but there are other Companies which are misusing the Copyrights and Trade Mark of the respondent No.1 and therefore, the respondent No.1 has also instituted suit against other companies before the District Court at Kopargaon.
(j) Learned senior counsel for respondent No.1 invited my attention to document at page 302 of the compilation of Misc. Civil applications and contended that, the suits are filed by the respondent No.1 herein against as many as 18 Companies. Therefore, it is submitted that, it is not that, the suit is filed by the respondent No.1 only against respondent No.2 and applicants herein but against other Companies also. It is submitted that, if the contention of the applicants is accepted that all suits are required to be heard and clubbed together, in that case, suits filed against other of 18 various companies/distilleries/Cooperative Societies etc. will have to be clubbed together. All those 18 companies/Co-operative Societies/distilleries etc. against whom suits are filed by respondent No.1 herein, are situated at various places like at Nagpur, Igatpuri, Niphad, Kolhapur, Satpuda etc.
(k) Therefore, Learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 relying upon the averments in the plaint, affidavit in reply, filed before this Court, provisions of Section 62 of the Copyright Act and Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act and the judgment in the case of NehaArun Jugadkar and Anr vs. Kumari Palak Diwan Ji, reported in AIR 2011 SC 1164, Exphar SA and Anr (supra), Ferring Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. (supra), International Association of Lions Club (supra), would contend that the applications for transfer are devoid of any merits and same deserves to be rejected with exemplary costs.
6. I have given careful consideration to the submissions advanced by the Learned senior counsel appearing for the parties. With their able assistance carefully perused the entire documents/material placed on record by the parties to the applications and also relevant provisions of Copyright Act, Trade Marks Act, Civil Procedure Code and also the judgments cited by the counsel for the parties across the bar. Indisputably, the application filed by the applicants herein under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. in Suit Nos. 6, 7 and 8 of 2011, is pending before the District Court at Kopargaon. It is also not in dispute that in suit Nos. 6, 7 and 8 of 2011 filed by the applicants herein, the relief in respect of âpassing offâ has not been prayed by respondent No.1. The respondent No.1 herein did file suit against respondent No.2 before District Court at Kopargaon in which respondent No.2 was sued even for act of âpassing offâ. Therefore, considering the averments in the said plaints and relief claimed therein by respondent No.1, and the fact that, cause of action so far suing for alleged act of âpassing offâ has not arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of District Court, Kopargaon, the said Court returned the plaint to respondent No.1 to present it before the District Court at Nagpur. However, in the present case, admittedly, relief of âpassing offâ has been omitted by respondent No.1 against the applicants herein.
7. At the outset, it would be apposite to reproduce herein below the provisions of Section 62 of Copyright Act 1957 and provisions of Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act 1999.
â62. Jurisdiction of court over matters arising under this Chapter. - (1) Every suit or other civil proceeding arising under this Chapter in respect of the infringement of copyright in any work or the infringement of any other right conferred by this Act shall be instituted in the district court having jurisdiction.
(2) For the purpose of sub-section (1), a "district court having jurisdiction" shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, or any other law for the time being in force, include a district court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction, at the time of the institution of the suit or other proceeding, the person instituting the suit or other proceeding or, where there are more than one such persons, any of them actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain. â
134. Suit for infringement, etc. to be instituted before District Court.-
(1) No suitâ-
(a) for the infringement of a registered trade mark: or
(b) relating to any right in a registered trade mark : or
(c) for passing off arising out of the use by the defendant of any trade mark which is identical with or deceptively similar to the plaintiffs trade mark, whether registered or unregistered, shall be instituted in any court inferior to a District Court having jurisdiction to try the suit.
(2) For the purpose of clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (1) a âDistrict court having jurisdictionâ shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 or any other law for the time being in force, include a District Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction, at the time of the institution of the suit or other proceeding, the person instituting the suit or proceeding, or, where are more than one such persons any of them, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain.
Explanation--- For the purposes of sub-section (2) âpersonâ includes the registered proprietor and the registered user.â
The Supreme Court in the case of ExpharSA and Anr (supra) had occasion to interpret the provisions of Section 62 of the Copyright Act 1957 and also the provisions of Section 20, Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. while interpreting the provisions of section 62 vis-a-vis the provisions of Section 20 of C.P.C. in para 13 it is held thus:-
â13. It is therefore, clear that the object and reason for the introduction of sub-section (2) of Section 62 was not to restrict the owners of the copyright to exercise their rights but to remove any impediment from their doing so. Section 62(2) cannot be read as limiting the jurisdiction of the District Court only to cases where the person instituting the suit or other proceeding, or where there are more than one such persons, any of them actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or presently works for gain. It prescribed an additional ground for attracting the jurisdiction of a Court over and above the ânormal grounds as laid down in Section 20 of the Act.â
Therefore, it follows from the authoritative pronouncements of the Supreme Court in the case of ExpharSA and another that, the object and reason for introducing of sub-Section (2) of Section 62 in the Copyright Act, was not to restrict the owners of the copyright to exercise their rights but to remove any impediment from their doing so. Section 62(2) cannot be read as limiting the jurisdiction of the District Court only to cases where the person instituting the suit or other proceeding, or where there are more than one such persons, any of them actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or presently works for gain. It prescribed an additional ground for attracting the jurisdiction of a Court over and above the ânormal grounds as laid down in Section 20 of the Act.
8. Yet in another exposition, the Supreme Court in the case of NehaArun Jugadkar (supra) held that an order of transfer of case can be passed where both the courts viz. transferee court as well as transferor court has jurisdiction to hear the case and the party seeking transfer of the case alleges that the transferee Court would be more convenient because the witnesses are available there or for some other reason it will be convenient for the parties to have the case heard by the transferee Court. There is no question of transfer of a case which has been filed in a Court which has no jurisdiction at all to hear it.
9. In the facts of the present case, upon careful reading of the averments in the plaint, it is abundantly clear that the manufacture/business activities of respondent No.1 are within territorial jurisdiction of the District Court at Kopargaon. Therefore, there is no manner of doubt that, only the Court at Kopargaon has jurisdiction to try and adjudicate the suits. At the cost of repeatation, it is to be observed that respondent No.1 has not prayed/claimed relief of âpassing offâ against the applicants. The ground pleaded by the applicants for transfer cannot be accepted in view of the fact that, the defendant No.1 has not only instituted suits against respondent No.2 and applicants herein but the suits are instituted by respondent No.1 for infringement of Copyrights and Trade Marks even against other companies/Corporations. According to respondent No.1, it has instituted suits before the District Court at Kopargaon, against following companies, Corporations, Factories, Distilleries etc. for infringement of Copyrights and Trade Marks;-
According to respondent No.1, following suits are instituted under the provisions of Copyright Act and Trade Marks Act:-
1. 1/2000 Kokan Agro. Marin Industries Nagpur
2. 2/2004 G.M. Betharies, Igatpuri
3. 2/2004 V.L.R. And Co. Seven star Distilleries
4. 3/2004 Seven Star Distilleries V.L.R. and Co.
5. 1/2005 Sanjivani S.S.K. Limited
6. 2/2007 Nevitod Distilleries
7. 3/2007 Deccan Bottling and Distilleries Pvt. Ltd.
8. 2/2009 M/s. Subhash Liquors
9. 3/2009 Satpuda Tapi S.S. K. Ltd.
10. 5/2009 Niphad S.S.K. Ltd. Niphad
11. 1/2011 Vidarbha Liquor Corporation, Nagpur
12. 2/2011 Royal Drinks Pvt. Ltd. Nagpur
13. 3/2011 Kolhapur Sugar Mills Kolhapur
14. 4/2011 M/s. Brhan Karan Sugar Syndicate Gonde
15. 5/2011 M/s. Vidarbha Bottlers Pvt. Ltd. Nagpur
16. 6/2011 M/s. Vidarbha Distilleries Nagpur
17. 7/2011 Nagpur Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. Nagpur
18. 8/2011 Nagpur Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. Nagpur
10. Therefore, if the above list is perused, it is abundantly clear that, the said companies/sugar factories, distilleries are situated at various places like Kolhapur, Nagpur, Niphad, Igatpuri etc. If the prayers for transfer are granted, in that case, respondent No.1 who is plaintiff will have to go to every place of transfer to prosecute the proceedings against 18 companies/Societies/ distilleries etc., as enlisted herein above. At the cost of repeatation, it is to be observed that, the application filed by the applicants herein under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. is still pending before the District Court, Kopargaon in Civil Suit Nos. 6, 7 and 8 of 2011. Therefore, if the balance of convenience is considered, certainly, in the light of the provisions of Section 62 of Copyright Act 1957 and provisions of Section 134 of Trade Marks Act and the averments in the plaint, it would lie in favour of plaintiff.
In substance, what is averred by the plaintiff, in para 17 of the plaint, is reproduced as under:-
â17. In the premises aforesaid, the Plaintiff says and submits that:
(i) as per the provisions of Sections 2(c), 13 and 17 of the Copyright Act, 1957, the plaintiff is the first owner of the copyright in the artistic labels âHINDIâ (produced at serial No. 1 of the list of documents); and
(ii) as per the provisions of Section 14(1) (c) of the Copyright Act, 1957, the plaintiff has the exclusive right to reproduce the said artistic trade mark labels in material form;
(iii) as per clauses (Zb) and (zg) of Section 2 and Section 2(4) and Sections 25, 28, 29 of the Trademarks Act, 1999 the plaintiff has the exclusive right to use the trade marks label âHINDIâ in relation to its country liquor and to protect infringement thereof;
(iv) the plaintiff has the proprietary and exclusive right to use the said trade mark labels (produced at serial No. 1 of the list of documents) including the said distinctive colour scheme, design, layout, get up and the words âHINDIâ in connection with its country liquor and in the goodwill and the business attached thereto; and
(v) the plaintiff has the statutory right to protect its copyright and trademark in the said label and to prevent any acts passing off and to file appropriate proceedings to present infringement thereof and to obtain reliefs in the manner provided by law.â
The cause of action for filing suit Nos. 6, 7 and 8 of 2011 against the applicants herein is broadly stated in the plaint from para Nos. 37 to 44.
11. The contention of the applicants that, it is only through the say filed by respondent No.2 herein in reply to averments in the suits filed by respondent No.1, against respondent No.2, the respondent No.1 came to know that the applicants are also misusing/infringing the Copyrights of respondent No.1 and therefore, the suits filed by the respondent No.1 against the applicants deserves to be tried alongwith the suit pending in the District Court at Nagpur, filed by respondent No. 2, cannot be accepted. At the cost of repeatation, it is to be observed that, when the respondent No.1 instituted the suit against respondent No.2 before the District Court, Kopargaon the relief in respect of âpassing offâ alongwith other reliefs was also prayed therein and therefore, the court returned the plaint to present before the competent court at Nagpur observing that, the cause of action for praying such relief has not occurred within the territorial jurisdiction of the District Court, at Kopargaon.
12. Apart from the discussion herein above, from material placed on record by respondent No.1 herein, it clearly emerges that the respondent No.1 has instituted various suits against 18 companies/Co-operative societies/distilleries etc. before the Court at Kopargaon for infringements of Copyrights and Trade Marks. In some of the suits, applications came to be filed by the defendants therein under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. for rejection/return of the plaint on the ground of jurisdiction, convenience etc. and such applications have been rejected by the District Court at Kopargaon, holding that the respondent No.1 herein i.e. the plaintiff in those suits is carrying on its manufacturing and business activities within the territorial jurisdiction of the District Court at Kopargaon, and in view of the allegations in the plaint of infringement of Trade Marks and Copyrights, it is only the District Court, Kopargaon has jurisdiction to try the suits. Therefore, if the case in hand is considered in its entirety, in the light of the discussion made herein above, there is no manner of doubt that, the District Court, Kopargaon has jurisdiction to try the suits instituted against the applicants. The ground of convenience cannot be accepted in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of DAV Boys Senior Secondary School and others (supra).
13. Therefore, in my opinion, viewed from any angle, the prayers for transfer of Suit Nos. 6 of 2011, 7 of 2011 and 8 of 2011, deserve no consideration. Resultantly, Misc. Civil Application Nos. 28 of 2012 and 29 of 2012 are rejected. Rule discharged.