Prathiba M. Singh DECISION
Prathiba M. Singh, J.
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
I.A. 10517/2019 (u/O VII Rule 11 CPC)
2. This is an application filed by the Defendants-Mr. Sudhir Kumar under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure ('CPC') seeking rejection of the Plaint.
3. Ld. Counsel for the Defendant submits that, though, the application has been styled as an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC it may be treated as an application Order VII Rule 10 CPC for return of the plaint for lack of territorial jurisdiction.
4. The present suit by the Plaintiff-Escorts Ltd. is for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from manufacturing, using or in any manner dealing with the Plaintiff's product namely 'AAR-H COUPLERS' for Passenger Coach and 'AAR-H COUPLERS' for Locomotive or carrying out any other action likely to infringe Plaintiff's registered Designs bearing no. '246851' & '251466' ('subject designs') under the Designs Act, 2000.
5. The suit was initially filed before the District Judge (Commercial), Patiala House Courts. However, since the Defendant took a plea of invalidity of the subject designs, the suit has been transferred to this Court under Section 22(4) of the Designs Act, 2000.
6. The Plaintiff asserts rights over its products, 'AAR-H COUPLERS' for passenger coach and 'AAR-H COUPLERS' for locomotives. The case of the Plaintiff is that it has two registered designs bearing Nos. '246851' and '251466' dated 31st July 2012 and 6th February 2013 respectively. The same are valid designs, and the Defendant No. 2-M/s Vasco Railway Enterprises which is a sole proprietary concern of Defendant No. 1-Mr. Sudhir Kumar, is infringing the Plaintiff's designs.
7. Vide order dated 05th July, 2018, an ad interim ex-parte injunction was granted by the District Judge (Commercial), Patiala House Courts, which is continuing till date.
8. Submissions have been heard on behalf of the parties in present application. The Defendant submits that as per the averments in the plaint, the ground on which the territorial jurisdiction is claimed is as under:
"33. That this Hon'ble Court has the territorial jurisdiction to try and adjudicate the present suit. The defendants are approaching the Head office of Indian Railways, Situated at Rail Bhavan, 1, Raisina Road, New Delhi and is soliciting the business. The defendants are also approaching various vendors situated within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court, i.e. Connaught Place, Gol Market, Parliament Streets, Barakhamba Road, Chankya Puri, Bengali Market, Mandir Marg, Tuglak Road, Tilak Marg, Naraina area for the purpose of manufacturing the various parts of the subject matter products. The defendants are having every intention to supply the impugned products to the Indian Railways within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. The cause of action in whole and/or in part has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. This Hon'ble Court is having territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present suit."
9. According to the ld. Counsel for the Defendant-Mr. Mudit Sharma, the above averment is insufficient to vest territorial jurisdiction in this Court.
10. He further submits that the only customer who can purchase the Defendant's products is the Indian Railways. According to the Defendants, the Indian Railways is an organization which does not do direct purchases but by calling for tenders, and parties have to submit their bids. Th........