rajdeep kumar 1 year ago

rajdeep

On April 16, 2025, the Delhi High Court delivered a pivotal judgment in M/s Kohinoor Seed Fields India Pvt Ltd v. M/s Veda Seed Sciences Pvt Ltd (CS(COMM) 828/2022), allowing an application under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) to return the plaint for want of territorial jurisdiction. The court held that no part of the cause of action arose in Delhi and that the plaintiff could not invoke jurisdiction solely based on its registered office in Delhi, given its subordinate office in Telangana, where the cause of action arose. This blog examines the case details, the court’s reasoning, and its implications for trademark infringement litigation in India.

Case Background

Kohinoor Seed Fields India Pvt Ltd, a Delhi-based seed company, filed a suit against Veda Seed Sciences Pvt Ltd, a Guntur, Andhra Pradesh-based company, seeking a permanent injunction to restrain Veda from infringing Kohinoor’s trademarks “TADAAKHA,” “BASANT,” and “SADANAND” and passing off its products. These trademarks were associated with Kohinoor’s Bollgard II (BG II) cotton hybrids, marketed since 2014. The parties had a non-exclusive co-marketing agreement since 2014, renewed annually, with the latest agreement executed in Delhi on January 1, 2022, valid until December 31, 2022.

In October 2022, Kohinoor learned that Veda was promoting and taking advance bookings for the Kharif 2023 season under the marks “VEDA TADAAKHA GOLD BG II,” “VEDA SADANAND GOLD BG II,” and “VEDA BASANT GOLD BG II” through WhatsApp communications and third-party listings on e-commerce platforms like IndiaMart and Kalgudi. Kohinoor issued a termination notice on November 25, 2022, and filed the suit on November 29, 2022, alleging trademark infringement and passing off. On December 1, 2022, the court granted an ad interim injunction, upheld by the Division Bench on December 15, 2022.

Veda filed an application (I.A. 2200/2023) under Order VII Rule 10 CPC, seeking return of the plaint, arguing that the Delhi High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction and that Kohinoor suppressed its subordinate offices in Telangana and Andhra Pradesh. Veda also filed a separate suit in Telangana, which was stayed by the Supreme Court pending the outcome of this application.

Key Arguments

Defendant’s Submissions (Veda Seed Sciences)

Represented by Senior Advocate Mr. Raj Shekhar Rao, Veda argued:

1. No Cause of Action in Delhi: The cause of action arose in Telangana, Andhra Pradesh, and other states where Veda marketed its products, not in Delhi. Kohinoor’s reliance on Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, was misplaced, as no part of the cause of action arose in Delhi, per Indian Performing Rights Society v. Sanjay Dalia (2015) and Ultra Home Construction v. Purushottam Kumar Chaubey (2016).
2. Suppression of Subordinate Offices: Kohinoor failed to disclose its branch offices in Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, from where it conducted business and raised invoices, undermining its claim of jurisdiction based solely on its Delhi registered office.
3. No Sales in Delhi: Veda lacked a seed dealer license in Delhi under the Seeds (Control) Order, 1983, and did not sell products there. The IndiaMart and Kalgudi listings were by third parties, not Veda, and did not target Delhi consumers, per Banyan Tree Holding v. A Murali Krishna Reddy (2009).
4. Marketing Agreement Irrelevant: The suit was for trademark infringement, not breach of the Marketing Agreement, which was still subsisting when the suit was filed. The agreement’s execution in Delhi did not confer jurisdiction.

Plaintiff’s Submissions (Kohinoor Seed Fields)

Represented by Mr. Saurav Agrawal, Kohinoor countered:

1. Registered Office Jurisdiction: Under Section 134(2), Kohinoor’s registered office in Delhi vested jurisdiction, as it carried on business there. The trademarks were registered in Delhi, and cases like Provident Housing v. Central Park Estates (2022) and CP Century Hardware v. Skywood Interior Solutions (2024) supported this.
2. 
   
3. Part Cause of Action in Delhi: The Marketing Agreement was executed in Delhi, and Veda was invoiced from Delhi. The agreement’s violation contributed to the cause of action. Additionally, Veda’s products were listed on IndiaMart, accessible in Delhi, satisfying the “purposeful availment” test from Marico Limited v. Mukesh Kumar (2018) and Shakti Fashion v. Burberry Limited (2022).
4. Dynamic Websites: IndiaMart’s interactive nature, allowing communication and orders, established jurisdiction, as Delhi users could access Veda’s listings.
5. Plaintiff’s Convenience: Section 134 aimed to ease the plaintiff’s burden, allowing suits at the registered office, regardless of subordinate offices, per Section 20 CPC or Section 134 alternatively.

Court’s Analysis and Decision

Justice Amit Bansal allowed Veda’s application, returning the plaint for presentation to a court with jurisdiction. The court addressed three key issues:

Issue 1: Was the Cause of Action Based on the Marketing Agreement?

The court held that the suit was solely for trademark infringement and passing off, not breach of the Marketing Agreement. Paragraph 49 of the plaint identified the cause of action as Veda’s use of Kohinoor’s marks in October 2022, with no reference to the agreement. Paragraph 50 mentioned the agreement only contextually, and paragraphs 47–48 reserved rights for separate breach-of-contract claims, as did the Order II Rule 2 application (I.A. 20138/2022). Thus, the agreement’s execution in Delhi did not confer jurisdiction.

Issue 2: Did Any Cause of Action Arise in Delhi, Including IndiaMart Listings?

The court found no cause of action in Delhi, relying on Banyan Tree Holding (2009), which held that mere website accessibility does not confer jurisdiction. Key findings included:

• No Sales in Delhi: The plaint lacked averments or documents showing Veda’s sales in Delhi. Dealer sheets and order forms indicated Veda’s operations in Telangana, Andhra Pradesh, and Karnataka.
• 
  
• Third-Party Listings: IndiaMart and Kalgudi listings were by third parties (Shiva Agro Agency, Karnataka, and Bhavani Seeds Center, Andhra Pradesh), not Veda. These listings did not offer delivery to Delhi or target Delhi consumers.
• Failure to Meet Banyan Tree Criteria: Kohinoor did not plead or show that Veda targeted Delhi for commercial transactions, engaged in Delhi-based sales, or caused injury in Delhi. The “effects” and “sliding scale” tests were unmet, as no harm to Kohinoor’s goodwill was demonstrated in Delhi.
• Distinction from Precedents: Unlike Marico Limited (where defendants sold through Big Bazar in Delhi) and Shakti Fashion (where the listing matched the defendant’s address), Veda’s listings were unaffiliated, and no Delhi sales were evidenced.

The court rejected Kohinoor’s “clever drafting” to invoke jurisdiction via vague references to “various e-commerce platforms,” citing T. Arvindandam v. T.V. Satyapal (1977).

Issue 3: Could Jurisdiction Be Claimed Solely Based on the Plaintiff’s Head Office in Delhi?

The court held that Kohinoor could not invoke jurisdiction under Section 134(2) based on its Delhi registered office, given its subordinate office in Telangana, where the cause of action arose. Key findings included:

• Suppression of Subordinate Office: Kohinoor failed to disclose its Telangana branch office (evidenced by invoices), undermining its Delhi-centric jurisdiction claim.
• Sanjay Dalia and Ultra Home Precedents: In Sanjay Dalia (2015), the Supreme Court held that if a plaintiff has a principal office and a subordinate office where the cause of action arises, the suit must be filed at the subordinate office’s location to avoid defendant inconvenience. Ultra Home (2016) outlined four scenarios, with the present case falling under the third: the plaintiff’s principal office is in Delhi, but the cause of action arose in Telangana, where its subordinate office is located. Thus, Kohinoor could sue in Telangana, not Delhi.
• Distinction from Plaintiff’s Cases: Provident Housing and CP Century Hardware were inapplicable, as they either lacked discussion on cause of action (Provident Housing) or involved explicit Delhi sales (CP Century Hardware). In contrast, no Delhi cause of action was established here.
• No Dynamic Effect: Kohinoor’s claim of a “dynamic effect” in Delhi was rejected, aligning with Radico Khaitan v. Nakshatra Distilleries (2023), which cautioned against using such terms to manufacture jurisdiction.

The court concluded that no cause of action arose in Delhi, and Kohinoor’s subordinate office in Telangana, coupled with the cause of action there, precluded Delhi jurisdiction.

Implications of the Judgment

This ruling has significant implications for trademark infringement and commercial litigation:

1. Strict Territorial Jurisdiction Standards: The decision reinforces Sanjay Dalia and Ultra Home, emphasizing that plaintiffs cannot bypass subordinate offices where the cause of action arises to file suits at their head office, preventing forum shopping and defendant inconvenience.
2. 
   
3. E-Commerce Listings Scrutiny: The court’s reliance on Banyan Tree Holding clarifies that third-party e-commerce listings do not confer jurisdiction unless the defendant actively targets the forum state with commercial intent, raising the evidentiary bar for plaintiffs.
4. Limits of Section 134(2): The ruling underscores that Section 134(2) is not a blanket provision for plaintiffs to sue at their registered office, especially when subordinate offices align with the cause of action, aligning with the legislative intent to balance convenience.
5. Pleading Precision Required: The court’s critique of “clever drafting” warns plaintiffs against vague or strategic pleadings to invoke jurisdiction, urging clear averments and documentary evidence, per T. Arvindandam.
6. Impact on Seed Industry Litigation: For the seed industry, where regional licensing and marketing are common, the ruling highlights the importance of aligning litigation with the geographic scope of operations and cause of action, particularly in co-marketing disputes.

Conclusion

The Delhi High Court’s decision in M/s Kohinoor Seed Fields India Pvt Ltd v. M/s Veda Seed Sciences Pvt Ltd is a landmark ruling on territorial jurisdiction in trademark infringement cases. By returning the plaint, the court upheld the principles of Sanjay Dalia and Ultra Home, ensuring that jurisdiction aligns with the cause of action and preventing plaintiffs from leveraging head office locations to inconvenience defendants. The judgment also clarifies the limited role of e-commerce listings in establishing jurisdiction, emphasizing defendant-controlled, targeted commercial activity.

For trademark litigants, the ruling underscores the need for precise pleadings, robust evidence of forum-state harm, and transparency about business operations. For the seed and agro-input industry, it highlights the jurisdictional complexities of co-marketing arrangements and regional licensing. As trademark disputes increasingly involve digital platforms, this decision provides a clear framework for courts and parties to navigate jurisdictional challenges.