Territorial Jurisdiction - The Legal Chamber

Supreme Court Unifies Patent Litigation in One Court to Prevent Conflicting Judgments

4Jan

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Unifies Patent Litigation in One Court to Prevent Conflicting Judgments

The Supreme Court allowed the transfer of an infringement suit from Delhi to Bombay High Court under Section 25 of the CPC, prioritizing the suit filed earlier in time to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and conflicting judgments. It held that a suit for groundless threats under Section 106 of the Patents Act constitutes an independent cause of action, but consolidation is necessary when legal and factual issues substantially overlap. Facts Of The Case: Atomberg Technologies launched its "Atomberg Intellon" water purifier on June 20, 2025. Shortly after, its competitor, Eureka Forbes Limited, allegedly made oral threats to Atomberg's distributors, claiming patent infringement and threatening legal action. In response, Atomberg filed a suit for "groundless threats...

Supreme Court Rules on Cheque Dishonour Jurisdiction: Court Where Payee’s Bank is Located Has Power

The Supreme Court held that under Section 142(2)(a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, jurisdiction for a cheque dishonour case lies exclusively with the court where the payee's bank branch (for collection) is situated, not where the cheque was physically deposited for credit. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Prakash Chimanlal Sheth, filed complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, concerning four cheques issued by the respondent, Jagruti Keyur Rajpopat. These cheques were dishonored due to insufficient funds. The appellant, who maintained his bank account with the Kotak Mahindra Bank's Bendurwell Branch in Mangalore, had presented the cheques for collection through the bank's Opera House Branch in Mumbai to be credited to his Mangalore account. The Jud...

Supreme Court Rules : Res Judicata Can’t Be Decided at Plaint Stage

The Supreme Court held that the plea of res judicata cannot be adjudicated under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) as it requires an in-depth examination of pleadings, issues, and decisions from the previous suit, which is beyond the scope of a plaint rejection application. The Court emphasized that only the averments in the plaint must be considered, and defenses or external documents cannot be relied upon. The judgment clarified that issues like fraud, collusion, or jurisdictional defects in a prior decree must be examined during trial, not at the preliminary stage. The appeal was allowed, and the suit was restored for expeditious disposal. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Pandurangan, purchased a disputed property from Hussain Babu in 1998, who had earlier acquired ...