1 LPA Nos. 317 & 318 Of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD Letters Patent Appeal No.317 Of 2010 In Writ Petition No.8391 Of 2010 With C.A. No.16954 Of 2010 In L.P.A.No.317 Of 2010 And Letters Patent Appeal No.318 Of 2010 In Writ Petition No.6007 Of 2010 With C.A. No.16957 Of 2010 In L.P.A.No.318 Of 2010 Ferring Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. ] Through its Authorized Signatory ] Dr. Ashok Dattatray Alate, ] Managing Director of the Appellant ] Company having its Registered ] Office at 403, Sigma Technology ] Street, Hiranandani Garden, Powai, ] Mumbai - 400 076 ] .. Appellant. Versus Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd. ] having its registered office at ] Tandalja Akota Road, ] Vadodra 390 020 ] Gujrat and its Administrative office ] at 17-B, Mahal Industrial Estate, ] Mahakali Craved Road, Chakla, ] Andheri (East), Mumbai 400 093. ] .. Respondent. -------- 2 LPA Nos. 317 & 318 Of 2010 Shri. S.G. Ladda, Advocate, for appellant. Shri. S.B. Deshpande and Shri. S.B. Joshi, Advocates instructed by J.P. Legal Associates, for respondent. -------- CORAM: NARESH H PATIL & SHRIHARI P DAVARE, JJ. DATE: 6th DECEMBER 2010 PER COURT : 1) Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2) The learned counsel for the appellant, Shri. Ladda, submits that the appellant is a defendant in Trademark Suit No.2 of 2009 filed in the Court of the District Judge at Ahmednagar. The appellant filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure which came to be rejected by an order dated 5th March 2010 passed by the District Judge-3 Ahmednagar below Exhibit 13. The said order was challenged by filing Writ Petition No.6007 of 2010. The learned Single Judge by judgment and order dated 19th October 2010 dismissed the writ petition. 3 LPA Nos. 317 & 318 Of 2010 3) Learned counsel Shri. Ladda submits that, the trial Court and learned Single Judge of the High Court erred in rejecting the contentions of the appellant. The pleadings of the plaintiff are lacking in respect of accrual of cause of action. Therefore, the suit is not maintainable. The respondent did not plead anywhere that the defendant resides or carries out business or personally works for gain at Ahmednagar. And neither in the plaint nor any of the documents filed along with plaint disclose that the plaintiff voluntarily resides or is carrying on business or personally works for gain within the jurisdiction of the Ahmednagar Court. 4) The learned counsel submits that the appellant had also filed an application under Section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure which came to be rejected by the trial Court by an order dated 24th July 2010. Writ Petition No. 8391 of 2010 was filed against the said order which also came to be dismissed by learned Single Judge by an order dated 19th October 2010. 4 LPA Nos. 317 & 318 Of 2010 5) Learned counsel appearing for the respondent Shri. Joshi submits that, both the Courts have considered the issue properly and reached conclusion which cannot be termed as erroneous for causing interference in the letters patent appeals. The counsel, in support of his submissions, has placed reliance on following reported judgments.-- (1) Wipro Limited v. Oushadha Chandrika Ayurvedic India(P.) Ltd., AIR 2008 Madras 165 (DB); (2) Exphar SA v. Eupharma Laboratories Ltd., AIR 2004 SC 1682; (3) M/s. Crescent Petroleum Ltd. v. Monchegorsk, AIR 2000 Bom. 161; (4) British Airways v. Art Works Export Ltd., AIR 1986 Cal 120. 6) Learned counsel Shri. Ladda for the appellant in support of his submissions has placed reliance on following reported judgments. (1) M/s Matrumal Dhannalal Oil Mill v. M/s Abhishek Enterprises, CS(OS) No. 643/2006 decided by Delhi High Court on 12th March 2010; 5 LPA Nos. 317 & 318 Of 2010 (2) The Indian Performing Right Society Ltd. v. Sanjay Dalia, FAO(OS) No. 359/2007 & CM 12471/2007 decided by Delhi High Court on 19th November 2008; (3) Alberto Co. v. R.K. Vijay, IA No. 12828/2009 in CS (OS) 2064/2003 decided by Delhi High Court on 11th January 2010; (4) Haryana Milk Foods Ltd. v. Chambel Dairy Products, 98 (2002) DLT 359; (5) M/s. Dhodha House v. S.K. Maingi, AIR 2006 SC 730(1); (6) K. Narayanan v. S. Murali, AIR 2008 SC 3261; (7) Bajaj Auto Ltd. v. Sundeep Polymers Private Limited, 2005(1) Bom. C.R. 792; (8) I.T.C. Limited v. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, AIR 1998 SC 634. 7) We have perused the impugned judgments and orders and the reported judgments cited supra. We find that the pleadings of the plaintiff, in the facts of the case, are relevant and sufficient enough for the Court to exercise jurisdiction. Prima facie, we are satisfied that, there is no jurisdictional error in the Court exercising powers. The learned Single Judge has considered the provisions of 6 LPA Nos. 317 & 318 Of 2010 Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks act 1999 and the provisions of Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957 as pari materia. Relying on the provisions of both the Acts, in the facts of the case, the learned Single Judge has adopted a liberal approach in favour of the investiture of the jurisdiction with the Court considering the object of the enactment. The learned Single Judge passed a reasoned order which, according to us, does not call for interference in exercise of our jurisdiction of Letters patent appeal. There is no error apparent on the face of record. 8) The Letters Patent Appeals are dismissed. 9) Civil Applications stand dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (SHRIHARI P DAVARE, J.) (NARESH H PATIL, J.) rsl