Back to basics: Division bench clarifies jurisdiction objections

In two recent judgments, a division bench comprising Justice B D Ahmed and Justice Ashutosh Kumar of the Delhi High Court examined objections taken by defendants with respect to territorial jurisdiction of the court. In the two cases before the court, the plaintiff had claimed, inter alia, that it feared a violation of its rights by the defendants in Delhi and therefore a part of the cause of action had arisen in Delhi.

This gave jurisdiction to the Delhi High Court to try these lawsuits. Another part of the plaintiff’s argument on jurisdiction was that the plaintiff carried on business in Delhi and therefore an overlap of the plaintiff’s business and cause of action existed in Delhi. Thus, the Delhi High Court had jurisdiction under the division bench judgment of Ultra Homes (2016).

In response, the defendants, inter alia, argued that once the defendants launched the disputed goods elsewhere in the country, the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court cannot be claimed on the basis of a quia timet claim, i.e., a claim based on the threat of harm in Delhi, as the alleged threat had been realized by the defendants’ launch of goods under the impugned mark elsewhere.In both cases, the defendants had already launched their products in Andhra Pradesh.

The single judges in the two cases agreed with the def

SHRAWAN CHOPRA is a partner at Anand and Anand, and ABHILASHA NAUTIYAL is a managing associate at the firm