The Delhi High Court has dismissed an application by Defendant No. 3 under Order VII Rule 10 CPC seeking return of the plaint for lack of territorial jurisdiction, holding that a demonstrated “offer for sale” of the allegedly infringing product within Delhi was sufficient to confer jurisdiction under Section 20(c) CPC.
Kubota Corporation, a Japanese multinational engaged in manufacturing agricultural machinery, sued an Indian company (Defendant No. 1) and its Chinese parent/related entities (Defendants No. 2 and 3) alleging infringement of five Indian patents embodied in its “HARVES KING” self-propelled combine harvester. The plaintiff claimed the defendants marketed a competing product, “RUILONG PLUS++,” in India, including offers for sale in Delhi, and sought a permanent injunction along with ancillary reliefs.
Defendant No. 3 argued that none of the parties had an office in Delhi, there was no evidence of sales or offers for sale in Delhi, and the only alleged purchase attempt occurred in Tamil Nadu and was incomplete. It contended that communications with Agroharvest Solutions, a third-party distributor, could not create jurisdiction.
Kubota countered that its investigator, posing as a Delhi-based customer, contacted Defendant No. 1’s Sales Manager, who confirmed that the product could be delivered in Delhi and issued a price quotation through Agroharvest, an authorised distributor. It relied on Section 48 of the Patents Act, 1970, which protects against unauthorised “offers for sale” and argued that such an offer in Delhi was enough to invoke jurisdiction.
Justice Amit Bansal held that at the stage of deciding an Order VII Rule 10 application, the court must assume the plaint’s averments to be true. The plaint clearly pleaded an offer for sale in Delhi, supported by an investigator’s affidavit, email correspondence, and an undisputed link between Defendant No. 1’s Sales Manager and the quotation. The Court held that Agroharvest’s role did not negate jurisdiction since the offer originated from Defendant No. 1’s authorised personnel.
Relying on Section 48 of the Patents Act, the Court clarified that actual sales are unnecessary, an offer for sale alone is enough to establish part of the cause of action, and the physical location of the offeror or offeree in Delhi is immaterial. Accordingly, the application was dismissed, with the Court noting that the issue of jurisdiction may still be revisited after trial.
Appearances:
For Plaintiff – Mr. J. Sai Deepak, Sr. Adv. with Mr. C.D. Mulherkar, Mr. Nitin Wadhwa, Mr. Cheitanya Madan, Mr. R. Vigneshwar, Ms. Megha Saha, Mr. Davinder Punia, Mr. Ananth Swamy, Ms. Srishti Banerjee & Mr. Avinash Sharma, Advs.
For Defendant No. 1 – Mr. Chander M. Lall, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Ms. Ramya Aggarwal & Ms. Annanya Mehan, Advs.
For Defendant No. 2 – Mr. Ayush Sharma, Adv.
For Defendant No. 3 – Mr. Amit Sibal & Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, Sr. Advs. with Mr. Nirupam Lodha, Mr. Nikhil Ranjan, Mr. Kshitij Parashar, Mr. Gautam Wadhwa, Mr. Saksham Dhingra, Ms. Suditi Batra, Mr. Darpan Sachdeva & Mr. Yashraj Samant, Advs.
