Sat. May 8th, 2021

Piccadily Agro Industries Ltd vs Ashok Jain And Ors on 31 May, 2017

1 min read

1. While I.A.No.5710/2016 has been filed in CS(COMM) No.76/2015 by
defendant nos. 4 & 5 under Order VII Rule 10, CPC, learned counsel for the
defendants in CS(OS) No.2326/2015 submitted that the plaint was liable to be
returned in accordance with the judgment rendered in an identical case titled as
Piccadily Agro Industries Ltd. Vs. Ashok Narwal and Anr. in CS(OS)
No.2550/2015.

2. Learned counsel for the defendants in both the suits stated that the
plaintiff had wrongly invoked the jurisdiction of this Court on the ground that
defendants have their registered offices in Delhi. They further stated that the
plaintiff had wrongly claimed that as decisions regarding manufacturing and
marketing of the products of the defendants had been taken at the registered
offices of the defendants in Delhi, hence this Court had jurisdiction to entertain
or try the present suits. They also stated that as the plaintiff had no registered
trademark, no suit for infringement of trademark lie.

Source: Indian Kanoon

Leave a Reply