Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J. - (1.) VIDE impugned order of 14.5.2014, accepting application under Order VII Rule 10 C.P.C. of respondents No. 2 and 3, plaint of the petitioner -plaintiff has been returned holding that the courts at Chandigarh have no territorial jurisdiction and that the suit should have been instituted in the courts at Mohali. It is claimed by the petitioner -plaintiff that the courts at Chandigarh also have jurisdiction but the same has not been exercised by the lower court whereas it is a case of mis user of the trade name of IBS by the defendants.
(2.) PERUSAL of the paper book as also the impugned order, while hearing arguments of counsel for the petitioner, reveals that cause of action, if any, has not arisen in the territorial jurisdiction of the Chandigarh courts. It is claimed that the petitioner -plaintiff is engaged in the business of banking educational services under the distinctive trade mark 'IBS' and trade name, Institute of Banking Educational Services Pvt. Ltd. under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. A franchisee agreement allegedly is in existence in favor of the petitioner. Agreement on record was duly considered by the lower court. It is an agreement of franchisee between the petitioner -plaintiff and respondent No. 1. In short, this agreement is not between the petitioner -plaintiff and the IBS but is between Shiksha, SCF No. 22, Sector 15 -C, Chandigarh and M/s. Banking Tutorials, SCF No. 63, Phase VII, Mohali. All the defendants, respondents herein, are residing at Mohali. There is no agreement of the petitioner -plaintiff with the defendants executed at Chandigarh. The lower court thus was right in coming to the conclusion that no cause of action has arisen in the territorial jurisdiction of Chandigarh courts. Misuse of trade name of IBS has allegedly been made by the respondents at Mohali and not at Chandigarh.
(3.) WHEN no cause of action, wholly or in part, accrues to the petitioner at Chandigarh, there is no territorial jurisdiction of the Courts at Chandigarh. There being no merit in the petition, no interference is called for. Dismissed.;