Read Time: 06 minutes
The Delhi High Court has ruled that a decree order issued by a court without jurisdiction is void and has no legal effect.
The Delhi High Court has recently held that the decree order passed by a court lacking jurisdiction will be null and not binding on the parties.
A bench of Justice Navin Chawla, in a plea challenging the trial court's order in a trademark infringement case, observed, "The proper and only course open to the learned Trial Court thereafter was to return the plaint to the plaintiff in the suit to file the same before a Court having jurisdiction."
The single-judge bench noted that despite having held categorically that it did not have the territorial jurisdiction to try the suit, the trial court proceeded to decree the same.
The impugned order has been passed in the case of Hari Ram & Sons v. Prem Narain Purwar & Ors. by which Prem Narain was restrained from using the trademark ‘HARI RAM AND SONS & HR LOGO’. The Appellants/Defendants in the suit contended that the trial court categorically held that it did not have jurisdiction to entertain the suit but nevertheless the Court pursued to decree the suit and hence, the decree passed was null and void.
The counsel appearing for Hari Ram & Sons argued that the above finding of the learned Trial Court was erroneous, inasmuch as, the plaintiff in the suit, in the plaint, had inter alia contended that the defendants in the suit were soliciting business under the impugned trademark within the territorial limits of Delhi. This was not specifically denied by the defendants in the suit in their written statement. They claimed that the defendants in the suit, having not specifically denied the same, were deemed to have admitted the said assertion and, therefore, on such admission itself, the Trial Court had the requisite territorial jurisdiction to try the suit.
The High Court observed that in the present case, not only was the objection of lack of territorial jurisdiction taken by the defendants in the suit at the initial stage of the trial of the suit, but an issue in that regard had been answered by the Trial Court in favour of the defendants in the suit.
Given the above, the High Court was of the view that the proper and only course open to the Trial Court thereafter was to return the plaint to the plaintiff in the suit to file the same before a court having jurisdiction. The Trial Court, having held that it lacked territorial jurisdiction, could not have proceeded to decree the suit in favour of the plaintiff in the suit, court said.
Advocates Jagdish Sagar, Praveen Kumar Jain, Naveen Kumar Jain, Shalini Jha, Ms.Rashmi Kumari appeared for the petitioners and for the respondents Advocate SK Bansal appeared.
Case Title: VIVEK PURWAR AND ANR. Vs. HARI RAM AND SONS
Please Login or Register
