business operations within this Court’s jurisdiction i.e, New Delhi. This argument is also noted in order dated 31st October, 2018 when the Court dealt with the Defendants’ request for framing of preliminary issue in respect of territorial jurisdiction. Upon noting the Plaintiff’s argument that the Defendants had presence in New Delhi, the Court specifically directed the Defendants to produce the list of dealers which is referred as ‘Exhibit E’ in the above extracted paragraph. However, in response, the counsel for Defendants submitted that the entire record of the Trademark Registry was missing, and they were unable to produce a copy of the same. Under these circumstances, the adjudication on the question of jurisdiction was deferred to until after the trial of the suit. The trial stands concluded, and the Defendants have failed to adduce evidence to counter the Plaintiff’s submission. They have failed to lead their own evidence, and their crossexamination of the Plaintiff’s witnesses did not effectively challenge or rebut the Plaintiff’s assertions. Thus, in addition to the Plaintiff’s reliance on section 134(2) of the Act, they can also rely upon Section 20(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which provides that a suit can be filed in a court within whose local limits the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises. Judicial precedents, such as in the case of Dhodha House v. S.K. Maingi ,6 elucidate that for a Court to assume jurisdiction, it must be shown that the Plaintiff carries on business within the jurisdiction and that a part of the cause of action arises within the territorial limits of the court. The Plaintiff has successfully demonstrated both these aspects through substantial evidence. They have proved business activities and their presence in Delhi through their subsidiary. In addition, Defendants’ acknowledgment of sales
