Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a passing off action concerning the trade mark consisting of the letters R.S.F. and No. 806 used on washing soap. The respondents, as plaintiffs, claimed exclusive ownership of the trade mark and sought a permanent injunction restraining the appellants, defendants, from passing off their washing soap as the goods of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs instituted the suit in the High Court of Mysore on May 5, 1964, during the summer vacation of the District Court of Mysore, where no judge was on duty to exercise the powers of the District Court. The High Court entertained the plaint and an application for interim injunction, and by order dated May 29, 1964, granted a temporary injunction restraining the defendants from using the trade mark R.S.F. on washing soap manufactured by them and from selling washing soap bearing the offending mark pending disposal of the case. The core legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court of Mysore had original jurisdiction to entertain the passing off action under Section 105 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, and whether it could exercise such jurisdiction merely because the District Court was closed. Section 105 permits such an action to be instituted in any court not inferior to a District Court having jurisdiction to try the suit. The expression District Court, by virtue of Section 2(e) of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, read with Section 2(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, includes the local limits of the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of a High Court. Thus, a High Court could entertain such a suit only if it possessed ordinary original civil jurisdiction. The Mysore High Court, however, was primarily a court of appeal and was not invested with ordinary original civil jurisdiction of a District Court. The earlier provision under Section 12 of the Mysore High Court Act, 1884, which allowed the Government to invest the High Court with such jurisdiction, had been repealed by Section 14 of the High Court of Mysore Act, 1962. The appellants argued that the High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the action and had no power to issue a temporary injunction. The respondents contended that as the apex court in the State, the High Court had all powers of subordinate courts and could assume jurisdiction in an extraordinary situation under Section 24 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. They relied on a short note of a decision in Kaverappa v. Narayanaswamy reported in Mysore Law Journal (1962) page 1, which suggested that an extraordinary situation could confer original jurisdiction on the High Court. The Supreme Court rejected the respondents' contentions. It held that jurisdiction of a court means the extent of authority to administer justice prescribed with reference to subject-matter, pecuniary value and local limits. The High Court of Mysore, being primarily appellate, could exercise original jurisdiction only where expressly conferred by special statutes. Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure only empowers the High Court to withdraw and try proceedings lawfully instituted in a subordinate court; it does not permit the High Court to entertain a proceeding not otherwise within its cognizance. Section 151 preserves inherent powers but does not authorize the High Court to invest itself with jurisdiction where none is conferred by law. The view expressed in Kaverappa v. Narayanaswamy was disapproved. Jurisdiction cannot be enlarged merely because an extraordinary situation requires the court to exercise it. Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, vacated the temporary injunction granted by the High Court, and ordered the plaint to be returned for presentation to the proper court. As no objection about maintainability was raised before the High Court, the parties were directed to bear their own costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Original Jurisdiction of High Court - High Court of Mysore not invested with ordinary original civil jurisdiction of District Court - Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, Section 105; High Court of Mysore Act, 1962 - Passing off action under Section 105 can be instituted in any court not inferior to District Court; the High Court can exercise such jurisdiction only if invested with ordinary original civil jurisdiction of a District Court; Mysore High Court primarily appellate and not so invested - Held High Court lacked original jurisdiction to entertain the action (Pages 801-802). B) Civil Procedure - Transfer of Proceedings - Section 24 CPC does not confer original jurisdiction - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 24(1)(b)(i) - Power to withdraw and try suit from subordinate court arises only if proceeding lawfully instituted in subordinate court and transferred; no power to entertain proceeding not otherwise within cognizance - Held Section 24 inapplicable (Pages 803-804). C) Civil Procedure - Inherent Powers - Section 151 CPC cannot create jurisdiction - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 151 - Inherent power preserved for ends of justice but only when proceeding lawfully before High Court; does not authorize High Court to invest itself with jurisdiction not conferred by law - Held inherent powers cannot validate assumption of jurisdiction (Page 803). D) Jurisprudence - Definition of Jurisdiction - Jurisdiction is extent of power conferred by constitution and cannot be enlarged due to extraordinary situation - General Principles - Jurisdiction means extent of authority to administer justice with reference to subject-matter, pecuniary value and local limits; closure of District Court during vacation does not empower High Court to assume original jurisdiction; disapproved decision in Kaverappa v. Narayanaswamy - Held appeal allowed, injunction vacated, plaint returned (Pages 803-804). E) Trade Marks - Passing Off Action - Requirement of court not inferior to District Court - Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, Section 105 - District Court defined by CPC section 2(4); High Court with ordinary original civil jurisdiction included; Mysore High Court not included; action must be filed in proper District Court - Held plaint returned for presentation to proper court (Pages 801-802).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court of Mysore had original jurisdiction to entertain a passing off action under Section 105 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 when the District Court was closed; whether Section 24 or Section 151 CPC empowered the High Court to assume jurisdiction.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed; temporary injunction granted by the High Court vacated; plaint ordered to be returned for presentation to the proper court; parties directed to bear their own costs.
Law Points
- High Court's original jurisdiction must be expressly conferred by statute
- Section 105 Trade and Merchandise Marks Act
- 1958 requires institution in court not inferior to District Court
- High Court with ordinary original civil jurisdiction only qualifies as District Court
- Section 24 CPC transfer presupposes lawful institution in subordinate court
- Section 151 CPC does not create jurisdiction
- jurisdiction cannot be enlarged due to extraordinary situation
