Kubota Corporation v. Godabari Agro Machinery and Services India Private Limited & Ors.

5.10. Aggrieved by the aforesaid, the plaintiff instituted the present suit against the defendants.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT NO.3

6. Mr. Amit Sibal, senior counsel appearing on behalf of the defendant no.3/ applicant, has made the following submissions in support of the application filed by the defendant no.3 under Order VII Rule 10 of the CPC seeking return of plaint:

6.1. As is apparent from the memorandum of parties, none of the parties have their registered offices within the jurisdiction of this Court. The plaintiff and the defendants no.2 and 3 do not even have a physical presence in India.

6.2. The plaintiff has only made vague averments, without any supporting documents, such that the impugned product is ‘advertised, offered for sale across India including within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court’. The plaintiff has, therefore, failed to establish any sale/ offer for sale of the impugned product within the territory of Delhi. Further, the plaintiff has also failed to show presence of any distributor or agent of the defendant no.1 in Delhi. Reliance in this regard has been placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Dodha House v. S.K. Maingi[1].

6.3. As per the plaintiff’s investigator’s report filed with the plaint, the plaintiff’s investigator sent a request for a quotation and delivery of the impugned product to one Mr. Raj Narayan Singh at his email address rajn1769@gmail.com. The plaintiff, however, has failed to establish the identity of this person and his relationship with any of the defendants.

6.4. The alleged offer for sale to the plaintiff’s investigator has not been made by or on behalf of the defendant no.3.

6.5. The alleged quotation received from Mr. Raj Narayan Singh was issued by Agroharvest Solutions Private Limited (hereinafter ‘Agroharvest’), which is not a party in the present suit. Further, the said entity is also not based in

Delhi. The plaintiff has, therefore, failed to show any bona fide sale/ offer for sale of the impugned product by the defendants in Delhi.

6.6. The plaintiff has attempted to specifically create a communication with Agroharvest, a third-party, to create jurisdiction of this Court. However, such an attempt could not even be converted into a successful order placement within the territory of Delhi. Thus, the plaintiff has engaged in forum shopping.

6.7. The plaintiff has failed to show any sale/ offer for sale being made by the defendant no.3 through IndiaMart within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. In this regard, reliance has been placed on the judgment of this bench in Kohinoor Seed Fields India v. Veda Seed Sciences[2].

6.8. The only alleged purchase of the impugned product by the plaintiff’s investigator was made in Tamil Nadu and the same was delivered in Chennai.

6.9. Trap purchases, that too an incomplete trap purchase in the present case, are insufficient to invoke jurisdiction of a court as a solitary transaction is not enough to establish territorial jurisdiction. Reliance in this regard has been placed on a judgment of a division bench of this Court in Banyan Tree Holding v. A. Murali Krishna Reddy[3].

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF

7. Mr. J. Sai Deepak, senior counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff, has made the following submissions in response:

7.1. As per Section 48(a) of the Patents Act, 1970 (hereinafter ‘Act’), a patentee has the exclusive right to prevent third-parties from selling or offering for sale a patented product in India.

7.2. The defendant no.1, being the importer and distributor of the impugned product, advertises and sells/ offers for sale the same across India, including Delhi, through multiple channels including through its agents, representatives and retail sellers.

7.3. The plaintiff’s investigator has confirmed that upon posing as a customer from Delhi, the agent/ authorized dealer of the defendant no.1 (and by extension that of the remaining defendants) offered for sale and delivery the impugned product in Delhi. Further, accessories and spare parts of the impugned product are also sold through the authorized dealers of the defendants within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.

7.4. Mr. Raj Narayan Singh, with whom the plaintiff’s investigator exchanged communication, is the Sales Manager of the defendant no.1. The aforesaid person, upon an enquiry made by the plaintiff’s investigator, confirmed his relationship with the defendant no.1 and agreed to deliver the impugned product in Delhi. Pertinently, the defendant no.3 has not denied that Mr. Raj Narayan Singh is its Sales Manager.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

8. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

9. It is a settled position of law that while deciding an application under Order VII Rule 10 of the CPC seeking return of plaint at the threshold stage on a demurrer, the Court is only required to consider the plaint and the documents filed therewith accepting all the averments made therein to be true and correct. A reference may be made to the judgment in Exphar v. Eupharma Laboratories[4], wherein the Supreme Court observed as under:

10. With this background, a reference may be made to the paragraph 173 of the plaint regarding the cause of action, which is set out below:

173. The cause of action again arose in June 2023 when the Plaintiff through a private investigation agency purchased the Impugned Product from its authorized dealer i.e., Salem Farm Solutions for an amount of Rs. 22.00,000 (Rupees Twenty-Lakhs) and disassembled the Impugned Product to conduct a detailed infringement analysis of the Impugned Product vis-a-vis the granted claims of the Suit Patents. The infringement analysis disclosed that the Impugned Product is materially similar or identical to the Plaintiff’s Product. The cause of action again arose in July 2023 when the Plaintiff through a private investigation agency approached an authorized distributor of the Defendants i.e., Agroharvest Solutions Private Limited and raised a query from New Delhi with respect to the quotation for the Impugned Product. The abovementioned distributor of the Impugned Product was offering for sale and delivery of the Impugned Product within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court evidencing that the Defendants offer for sale the Impugned Product across the country.”

11. Now a reference may be made to paragraph 175 of the plaint dealing with jurisdiction, the relevant extracts of which are reproduced hereinbelow:

No. 3 is advertised, offered for sale across India including within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. The logos of all the defendants are affixed on the machine body of the Impugned Product evidencing strong market presence of not only Defendant No. 1 but also, the Defendants No. 2 and No. 3. *** *** ***

(iii) In July 2023 when the Plaintiff through a private investigation agency approached an authorized distributor of the Defendants i.e., Agroharvest Solutions Private Limited and raised a query from New Delhi with respect to the quotation for the Impugned Product. The abovementioned distributor of the Impugned Product offered for sale and delivery of the Impugned Product within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court evidencing that the Defendants offer for sale the Impugned Product across the country. It is furthermore submitted that the accessories and spare parts of the Impugned Product are also sold through authorized dealers of the Defendants within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. *** *** ***

(v) Furthermore, a part of the cause of action has arisen in New Delhi as the Defendant No. 1 through its authorized dealers offers to sell the Impugned Product without any limitation as to territory, i.e., there is no bar and in fact an open offer to sell such product to anyone anywhere in India including within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. It is, therefore, submitted that this Hon’ble Court has the necessary territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit.

12. On behalf of the defendant no.3, reliance has been placed on the judgment of this bench in Kohinoor Seed Fields India v. Veda Seed Sciences, which dealt with the aspect of territorial jurisdiction in the context of an application under Order VII Rule 10 of the CPC. The relevant observations made in Kohinoor (supra) for the purposes of the present case are set out below:

the plaint such as dealer information sheets and order forms of the defendant (at pp. 51-331 of the Vol. II of the plaintiff’s documents filed along with the plaint), seem to suggest that the business of the defendant is carried out only in the states of Telangana, Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka and not in Delhi.

32. The plaintiff claims territorial jurisdiction on the basis of the listing of the defendant’s products on various e-commerce platforms like India Mart, etc. The specific pleading in Para 50 is that, “impugned goods of the defendants are available on various e-commerce platforms like India Mart, etc. which are available for access within New Delhi”.”

13. At the very outset, Mr. J. Sai Deepak, senior counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff, submits that even though jurisdiction of this Court to adjudicate the present suit has also been asserted by the plaintiff on the basis of listing of the impugned product on IndiaMart, he does not wish to press the said ground for the purposes of the present application.

14. Since counsel for the plaintiff does not wish to invoke jurisdiction of this Court on the basis of listing of the impugned product on IndiaMart, the judgment passed by this bench in Kohinoor (supra), to the extent it deals with the aspect of jurisdiction on the basis of listing of the impugned product on IndiaMart, shall have no bearing on the adjudication of the present application.

15. A reading of the aforesaid paragraphs from Kohinoor (supra) would demonstrate that the plaintiff therein made no averments in the plaint alleging that the defendant sells/ offers to sell the impugned product in Delhi. In the present case, however, specific averments have been made by the plaintiff in paragraphs 173 and 175(iii) of the plaint set out above that the impugned product is offered for sale and delivery within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Hence, the judgment passed by this bench in Kohinoor (supra) does not advance the case of the defendants.

16. In support of the aforesaid averments made in the plaint, the plaintiff has placed on record an affidavit of its investigator, Mr. Vincent Jose, stated to be a director of Instaquest Consulting Private Limited (hereinafter ‘Instaquest’), a private investigation agency. In the said affidavit, it has been deposed that Instaquest contacted one Mr. Raj Narayan Singh, being Sales Manager of the defendant no.1, and requested him for a quotation for the impugned product for delivery in Delhi. Mr. Raj Narayan Singh confirmed to Instaquest that the impugned product could be delivered in Delhi and shared with it a price quotation for the impugned product.

17. Along with the affidavit, Mr. Vincent Jose has placed on record an email dated 30th June, 2023 written to Mr. Raj Narayan Singh asking him for a price quotation for supplying the impugned product in Delhi. Mr. Raj Narayan Singh responded to the aforesaid email on 1st July, 2023 providing a price quotation issued by Agroharvest, one of the distributors of the defendant no.1. The response clearly demonstrates the willingness of the defendant no.1 to sell the impugned product in Delhi.

18. The plaintiff has also placed on record the visiting card of Mr. Raj Narayan Singh in support of its contention that he is working as Sales Manager with the defendant no.1. The defendant no.1 does not dispute that Mr. Raj Narayan Singh is working as Sales Manager with the defendant no.1.

19. On behalf of the defendant no.3, it is contended that the aforesaid price quotation for the impugned product shared with the plaintiff’s investigator by Mr. Raj Narayan Singh was issued by Agroharvest, and not the defendant no.1. It is further contended that Agroharvest is a third-party and the plaintiff has not impleaded the said party in the present suit.

20. A clear averment has been made in the plaint that Agroharvest is a distributor of the defendant no.1 (refer paragraphs 173 and 175(iii) of the plaint set out above). In my view, there is no requirement for the plaintiff to implead Agroharvest as a party to the present suit as there was no direct communication between the plaintiff and Agroharvest. The plaintiff’s investigator did not receive the price quotation from Agroharvest directly and the same was shared with the plaintiff’s investigator by Mr. Raj Narayan Singh, who is admittedly the Sales Manager of the defendant no.1.

21. Section 48 of the Act categorically provides that a patentee has an exclusive right to prevent third-parties, inter alia from ‘offering for sale’ a patented product without its consent. Therefore, in terms of Section 48 of the Act, the prescribed threshold is only an ‘offer for sale’. Thus, even if no actual sale materialized within the jurisdiction of this Court, the cause of action can be made out on the basis of an ‘offer for sale and delivery’ of the impugned product within the jurisdiction of this Court. Therefore, from a reading of the plaint and the documents filed therewith, it can be safely said that a part of the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court in terms of Section 20(c) of the CPC.

22. It has also been contended on behalf of the defendant no.3 that in the present case, neither the offeror of the impugned product nor the offeree is based or carries on business in Delhi. The cause of action in the present case has been asserted on the basis of the impugned product being ‘offered for sale’ within the territory of Delhi. Therefore, it would not matter even if the offeror and the offeree are not based within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.

23. Reliance has also been placed on behalf of the defendant no.3 on the judgment of the division bench of this Court in Banyan Tree (supra) to support the contention that the nature of the ‘offer for sale’ and the price quotation sent to the plaintiff’s investigator is that of a trap transaction.

24. Banyan Tree (supra) is distinguishable in the facts and circumstances of the present case as the division bench in the said judgment was dealing with a situation where the defendants were hosting a website accessible in Delhi and an order for the impugned product was placed through the said website. In the present case, the plaintiff has not made any assertions with regard to the defendants selling the impugned product within the jurisdiction of this Court through their website. Therefore, the judgment in Banyan Tree (supra) would have no application to the facts and circumstances of the present case.

25. At this stage, a reference may also be made to paragraph 50 of the written statement filed on behalf of the defendant no.3, which is set out below: “50. The Answering Defendant manufactures the Combine Harvester Product in China and no manufacturing activity is undertaken by the Answering Defendant in India. As per the Answering Defendant's business model, it sells the Combine Harvester Product to third parties in China, who are thereafter free to sell the Combine Harvester Product to any further distributors, customers etc. anywhere in the world-the Answering Defendant does not have any control or say in respect of the territory and/or customers to which such third parties further sell/ distribute the Combine Harvester Product. It is pertinent to note that the sale transaction between Answering Defendant and such third parties is concluded in China.”

26. A perusal of the aforesaid extracts from the written statement would confirm that the defendant no.3 does not control in any manner the territory where its products are sold or the customers who purchase its product. The distributors of the defendant no.3 are admittedly free to sell its products, including the impugned product, anywhere in the world without any limitation.

27. Basis the averments made in the plaint along with the documents filed therewith, at this stage, the plaintiff has established jurisdiction of this Court in terms of Section 20(c) of the CPC. Therefore, this Court is not required to examine the aspect of jurisdiction of this Court under Section 20(b) of the CPC.

28. In view of the discussion above, on the parameters of Order VII Rule 10 of the CPC, it cannot be said that no cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The question of jurisdiction would have to be determined at the stage of trial.

29. Accordingly, there is no merit in the present application and the same is dismissed.

30. List along with pending applications before the Roster Bench on 23rd September, 2025.

AMIT BANSAL (JUDGE) AUGUST 12, 2025 Vivek/-