3. The motion was called out for
hearing before me on March 9,1989 and
Shri Desai, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the defendants, raised a
preliminary objection to the
maintainability of the suit in this court
on the ground that this court has no
jurisdiction to entertain and grant the
relief. Shri Desai contended that the
defendants, on the date of the filing of
the suit, did not carry on any business
within the jurisdiction of this court.
Shri Desai claimed that though initially
the defendants had maintained an office
at Kandivali in bombay for the purpose of
facilitating purchase of raw materials,
the same was closed down in March or
April 1988 and thereafter the defendants
are carrying on business only at Kota in
Rajasthan, Shri Mehta, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the plaintiffs, on
the other hand, urged that the cartons
used by the defendants even now show that
the business was carried out at
Kandivali, Bombay. The hearing of the
motion was postponed to ascertain whether
in fact the defendants are even now
having office at Kandivali. There is no
dispute that in respect of cause of
action arising out of the infringement of
copy right, this court has jurisdiction
under Section 62 of the Copy Right Act.
The plaintiffs complaining of violation
of copyright can institute suit at the
place where the plaintiffs are residing
or carrying on business. The
jurisdiction of this court was challenged
only in respect of cause of action
arising out of infringement of trade mark
and grievance about passing off.
