M/S. PARAGON RUBBER INDUSTRIESversusM/S. PRAGATHI RUBBER MILLS & ORS.

                       [2013] 17 S.C.R. 786


A            M/S. PARAGON RUBBER INDUSTRIES
                                  v.
             M/S. PRAGATHI RUBBER MILLS & ORS.
                 (Civil Appeal No. 10745 of 2013)
                       NOVEMBER 29, 2013
B
        [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR AND A.K.SIKRI, JJ.]

       Suit - Composite suit - Maintainability - .Suit filed under
   Copyrights Act, 1957 and Trade and Merchandise Marks Act,
C 1958 - In the district court at Kottayam in the State of Kera/a
  - Territorial jurisdiction of the court challenged - Held: A
  composite suit would not be maintainable, unless the court
  has jurisdiction to entertain the suit in relation to the entire
  cause of action and the entire relief - Jn the instant case, the
D suit was composite and the court at Kottayam had no
  jurisdiction under 1958 Act - However, the High Court in
  exercise of its discretionary powers, was right in directing
  amendment of the suit, to avoid multiplicity of litigation.
       The plaintiff filed a suit before to District Court at
E Kottayam .in the State of Kerela, against the defendants
  claiming relief under the Copyrights Act, 1957 and also
  under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. The
  defendant filed application u/Or. VII r. XI CPC, seeking
  rejection of the plaint for want of territorial jurisdiction.
F Trial court rejected the application observing that issue
  of jurisdiction would be decided at the final stage of the
  suit. Rejection of application was challenged before High
  Court, who directed the trial court to determine issue of
  territorial jurisdiction. The trial court decided the issue
G and held that the court had the jurisdiction to entertain
  the suit in view of s.62(2) of 1957 Act. The order was
  carried to High Court, who set aside the order passed by
  the trial court holding that a composite suit would not be

H                               786
  PARAGON RUBBER INDUSTRIES v. PRAGATHI                  787
             RUBBER MILLS
maintainable, and gave liberty to amend the plaint so as       A
to make the suit maintainable before the District Court,
Kottayam. Hence the plaintiff filed appeal before this
Court challenging the order of High Court. The
defendant also filed appeal to this Court challenging the
order of High Court permitting the plaintiff to amend the      B
plaint.
    Dismissing the appeals, the Court
     HELD: 1. The averments in the plaint itself make it
abundantly clear that even the plaintiff was aware that the c
court at Kottayam will have no jurisdiction under the 1958
Act, but tried to camouflage the same by confusing it and
mixing it up or intermingling it with the relief contained
under the 1957 Act. From the averments made in the ·
plaint, it is apparent that the plaintiff had filed a composite 0
suit. Such a suit would not be maintainable unless the
court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit in relation to
the entire cause of action and the entire relief. [Para 15]
[794-F-G]
     Dhodha House vs. S.K.Maingi (2006) 9 SCC 41: 2005         E
(5) Suppl. SCR751; Dabur India Ltd. vs. K.R.lndustries
(2008) 10 sec 595: 2008 (9) SCR 652 - relied on.
     2. There is no conflict in the ratio of law laid down in
Dabur India case and Dhodha House case. In both the
                                                              F
cases it has been held that for the purpose of invoking
the jurisdiction of the court in a composite suit, both the
causes of action must arise within the jurisdiction of the
court which otherwise had the necessary jurisdiction to
decide all the issues. However, the jurisdiction cannot be
conferred by joining two causes of action in the same suit G
when the court has jurisdiction to try the suit only in
respect of one cause of action and not the other. There
is also no conflict between the law laid down in Dabur
India case and Exphar SA case. [Paras 19 and 20] [796-
G-H; 797-E]                                                   H
    788     SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2013] 17 S.C.R.


A       Dhodha House vs. S.K.Maingi (2006) 9 SCC 41: 2005
    (5) Suppl. SCR 751; Dabur India Ltd. vs. KR.Industries
    (2008) 10 SCC 595: 2008 (9) SCR 652; Exphar SA vs.
    Eupharma Laboratories Ltd. (2004) 3 SCC 688 - referred to.

       3. The High Court has correctly held that the
8
  provision contained in Section 134 of the Trade Marks
  Act, 1999 would not come to the aid of the plaintiff.
  Although, the 1999 Act was enacted on 30th December,
  1999, it came into force on 15th September, 2003 vide S.O.
  1048(E), dated 15th September, 2003, published in the
C Gazette of India, Extra., Pt. II, Sec. 3(1i), dated 15th
  September, 2003. Since the suit in this case was filed on
  19th March, 2001, it wquld be adjudicated under the 1958
  Act. The 1958 Act does not contain a provision similar.to
  the provision corltained in Section 62(2) of the 1951 Act.
D Parliament being aware of the provisions.of the 1957 Act
  still did not incorporate the same in the 1958 Act.
  Therefore, it can not be read into the 1958 Act by
  implication. The High Court had correctly concluded that
  the suit of the plaintiff (appellant) was a composite one.
E [Para 21] [799-E-G]

        4. However, the Court is not inclined to interfere with
  the order passed by the High Court permitting the plaintiff
  to amend the plaint. The High Court was mindful of the
F fact that under the 1999 Act, a composite suit could be
  filed and would be maintainable by the Court at Kottayam.
  The Court was aware that the plaintiff had filed the suit
  on 19th March, 2001, but the 1999 Act was not enforced
  till 15th September, 2003. The High Court passed the
G order in exercise of its discretionary powers taking into
  consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the
  case. The discretion exercised by the High Court can not
  be said to be either erroneous or perverse. It has been
  exercised only to avoid multiplicity of litigation. The
  defendant (respondent) could not dispute that in so far
H
   PARAGON RUBBER INDUSTRIES v. PRAGATHI                    789
              RUBBER MILLS
as suit predicated on the Copy Right is concerned, the            A
Court at Kottayam is having requisite jurisdiction in view
of the. ..&rovisions of Section 62(2) of the Copy Right Act.
TherefOl'e, had the suit been filed for violation of copy right
alone, the Court at Kottayam could validly entertain the
same. By permitting the plaintiff to amend the plaint so          B
as that the suit will be maintainable before the District
Court, Kottayam, no error was committ,ed by the High
Court. [Para 22] [799-H; 800-A-D]

                     Case Law Reference:
                                                                  c
   2005 (5) Suppl. SCR 751      relied on         Para 13
                                referred to       Para 20
   2008 (9) SCR 652             relied on         Para 13 ·
                                                                  D
                                referred to       Para 20
   (2004) 3 sec 688             referred to       Para 20
    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
10745 of 2013 etc.
                                                                  E
    From the Judgment and Order dated 15.03.2011 of the
High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in CRP No. 1417 of 2004.

                               WITH
                                                                  F
C. A. No. ·10746 of 2013

    Sic;ldhartha· Dave, A. Raghunath, Atul Jha, Divya
Balasundaram, Sandeep Jha, Dharmendra Kumar Sinha for the
Appearing Parties.
                                                                  G
    Th~ Judgment of the Court was delivered by

    SllfilNDER SINGH NIJJAR, J. 1. Leave granted.

    ?, This judgment shall dispose of C.A.No. 10745 of 2013
                                          .
@ .@e.{C) No.22280 of 2011 and C.A.No. 10746 of_2013@ . H
    790 SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     (2013) 17 S.C.R.


A   SLP (C) No.33453 of 2011. Both the appeals impugn the
    judgment of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam dated 15th
    March, 2011, rendered in Civil Revision Petition No.1417 of
    2004.

8        3. Since these are cross appeals, the parties 'shall be
    referred to as plaintiff and defendant. The facts at the centre of
    this controversy are as follows:                           '

         The Plaintiff is engaged in the business of manufacturing
  and marketing of footwear since 1975, under the registered
C trademark for which it also possesses ttie registered copyright.
  The Plaintiff is located in Kerala. The Defendant, which is
  located in Jalandhar, Punjab, also manufactures and markets
  its footwear under the registered trademark and copyright
  PRAGATl/PARAGATI with a device of lion.
D
        4. On 19th March, 2001, the Plaintiff filed a suit being O.S.
  No. 2 of 2001 at District Courts in Kottayam, Kerala against
  the defendants, claiming relief under the Copyright Act, 1957
  (hereinafter referred to as "1957 Act") and the Trade and·
E Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the
  "1958 Act"). The suit is pending in the trial court. The defendant
  filed I.A. No. 322 of 2004, under order VII Rule XI CPC, with a
  prayer for rejection of plaint for want of territorial jurisdiction.
  The trial court dismissed the application on 22nd March, 2004,
F with the observations that the issue of jurisdiction will be
  decided at the final stage of the suit. The defendant filed CRP
  No.363 of 2004 in the High Court against the aforesaid order.
  The High Court by order dated 16th June, 2004-;- ~!lowed the
  civil revision and directed the trial court to determine the issue
  of territorial jurisdiction afresh.
G
        5. In view of the aforesaid directions issued by the High
  Court, the trial court treated the issue with regard to the
  jurisdiction as the preliminary issue. Upon consideration of the
  entire matter again the trial court in its order dated 6th October,
H 2004 held that it has the jurisdiction to entertain the suit in view
   PARAGON RUBBER INDUSTRIES v. PRAGATHI                       791
   RUBBER MILLS [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.)
of Section 62(2) of the 1957 Act. The petitioner challenged the        A
aforesaid order in the High Court by filing C.R.P. No. 1417 of
2004. The High Court, upon consideration of the matter has,
by the impugned order dated 15th March, 2011, held as
under:~

                                                                       B
    "The court below held in the order impugneg that the suit
    as such is maintainable before the D)strict Court,
    Kottayam. That finding is not correct i'n view of the
    decisions of the Supreme Court referred to above.
    Accordingly, the order passed by the court below is set
    aside. The plaintiff is given liberty to amend the plaint, so      C
    that the suit will be maintainable before the District Court,
    Kottayam, in the light of the principles laid down by the
    Supreme Court in the aforesaid decisions. When an
    application is filed for amendment of the plaint, the court
    below shall consider the same on the merits, after affording       D
    an opportunity of being heard to both sides.

     The Civil Revision Petition is allowed as above."

     6. A perusal of the above shows that the High Court,              E
having come to the correct conclusion that a composite suit
would not be maintainable, has set aside the order passed by
the trial court. Thereafter, the Plaintiff has been given liberty to
amend the plaint so that the suit will be maintainable before the
District Court, Kottayam. The plaintiff aggrieved by the
aforesaid order has filed SLP (C) No.22280 of 2011 giving rise         F
to C.A.No. 10745 of 2013.

     7. The defendanUpetitioner in SLP (C) No. 33453 of 2011
has challenged the impugned order on the ground that having
come to the conclusion that a composite suit under the 1957            G
Act and 1958 Act was not maintainable, the High Court erred
in permitting the plainiiff to amend the plaint rather than
rejecting the same on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.

     8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
                                                                       H
    792        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2013) 17 S.C.R.


A       9. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Plaintiff that
  the suit was maintainable before the District Judge, Kottayam
  for violation of the copyright in view of Section 62(2) of the 1957
  Act, which permits the filing of the suit at the place where the
  plaintiff resides. It is further submitted by the learned counsel
B that the High Court has wrongly held that a composite suit
  claiming relief under the 1957 Act and the 1958 Act would not
  be maintainable. Mr. Siddhartha Dave, learned counsel
  appearing for the plaintiff further submitted that the relief
  claimed under the 1958 Act in the suit filed by the plaintiff under
c the 1957 Act was incidental to the renef claimed under th.e 1957
  Act. Such a composite suit would be maintainable. According
  to the learned counsel, this Court in the case of Dhodha House
  vs. S.K.Maingi 1 examined and only partly answered the
  question as to whether a composite suit seeking relief of
D injunction under both the 1957 Act and the 1958 Act is
  maintainable when filed in the court where the plaintiff resides.
  In support of the submissions made, learned counsel relied on
  para 54 and 55 of the judgment.

       10. Learned counsel further submitted that this Court in the
E case of Dabur India Ltd. Vs. K.R.lndustries 2 answered the
  question as to what would be meant by a composite suit?
  Answering the aforesaid question, this Court has held that the
  ratio in the case of Dhodha House (supra) is that the
  provisions contained in Sectiort 62(2) of the 1957 Act have
F been specially designed to confer an extra benefit upon the
  parties who were not in a position to, injtlate copyright
  proceedings in two different courts. In o!he~ words, it prescribes
  an additional ground for attracting the jurisdiction of the court
  over and above the normal grounds as laid down in Section
G 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Mr. Dave also pointed
  out that there is an earlier judgment of this Court in Exphar SA


    1.   (2006) g sec 41.
H   2.   (2008) 1o sec 595.
     PARAGON RUBBER INDUSTRIES v. PRAGATHI                       793
     RUBBER MILLS [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.]
vs. Eupharma Laboratories Ltd 3 in which it has been held that           A
a composite suit would be maintainable where the plaintiff
resides in view of the provisions of the 1957 Act. In Dabur
India's Case, it has been incorrectly observed that the case
of Exphar SA (supra) was not considered in Dhodha House
(supra). Therefore, according to the learned counsel, there is           B
a slight confusion and conflict between the decision in Exphar
and Dhodha House on the one hand and Dabur case on the
other. It is, therefore, submitted that the aforesaid three
decisions need to be clarified and referred to a larger bench.

     11. In the alternative, it is submitted that the relief claimed
                                                                         c
under the 1958 Act was only incidental to the relief claimed
under the 1957 Act and such a composite suit would be
maintainable in view of the ratio of law laid down in the case of
Dhodha House Case as well as in the Dabur Case.
Additionally, it is submitted that under the Trade Marks Act,            D
1999, (hereinafter referred to as the '1999 Act) the provisions
similar to Section 62(2) of the 1957 Act has been incorporated
thereby conferring the jurisdiction on the court where the plaintiff
resides. In view of this provision, even though the Act was
enforced with effect from 15th September, 2003, the High Court           E
ought to have allowed the proceedings to continue in Kottayam
rather than truncating the suit, which would otherwise have to
be partly tried in Kottayam and partly in Jalandhar.

      12. On the other hand, the defendant submitted that the            F
suit filed by the plaintiff is in the nature of composite suit. It has
been admitted by the plaintiff that the defendant's goods are
not available in Kottayam, nor do the defendant reside or carry
on business within the jurisdiction of that Court. The plaintiffs
have chosen to file the suit at Kottayam only on the ground that         G
the jurisdiction would be vested in the District Court of Kottayam
by virtue of Section 62(2) of the 1957 Act. It is further submitted
that the reliance placed by the plaintiff on the provisions
contained in Section 134 of the 1999 Act is misplaced. The
3.   (2004) 3 sec 688.                                                   H
    794 SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       (2013] 17 S.C.R.

                                    '
A   defendant also placed reliance on Section 159(4) of the 1999
    Act and submitted that the proceedings initiated under the 1958
    Act would be governed by the same Act notwithstanding the
    provisions contained in the 1999 Act.

         13. We have considered the submissions made by the
8
    learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the issues raised
    in the present proceedings are no longer res integra being
    covered by the ratio of judgments of this Court in the case of
    Dhodha House (supra) and Dabur India (supra).
c       14. It is not disputed before us that in the plaint itself it is
    pleaded as under:

         "Though the defendants goods are not available in
         Kottayam, nor do the defendants carry on business and
D        reside within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court, yet this
         Hon'ble Court has the jurisdiction to try and entertain this
         suit at Kottayam having regard to the provisions of Section
         62(2) of the Copyright Act for the plaintiff carries on
         business and resides within the territorial jurisdiction of this
         Hon'ble Court."
E
         15. The aforesaid averments make it abundantly clear that
    even the plaintiff was aware that the court at Kottayam will have
    no jurisdiction under the 1958 Act, but tried to camouflage the
    same by confusing it and mixing it up or intermingling it with
F   the relief contained under the 1957 Act. From the averments
    made in the plaint, it is apparent that the plaintiff had filed a
    composite suit: Such a suit would not be maintainable unless
    the court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit in relation to the
    entire cause of action and the entire relief.
G
         16. We have noticed earlier that the issue is no longer res
    integra. The same issue has been examined in Dhodha House
    (supra). In paragraph 43, this Court formulated the question for
    consideration which is as under:
H        "43. The short question which arises for consideration is
PARAGON RUBBER INDUSTRIES v. PRAGATHI                   795
RUBBER MILLS [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.]
as to whether causes of action in terms of both the 1957 A
Act and the 1958 Act although may be different, would a
suit be maintainable in a court only because it has the.
jurisdiction to entertain the.same in terms of Section 62(2)
of the 1957 Act?"
                                                             B
17. It was answered as follows:-

 "44. A cause of action in a given case both under the 1957
 Act as also under the 1958 Act may be overlapping to
 some extent. The territorial jurisdiction conferred upon the
 court in terms of the provisions of the Code of Civil C
 Procedure indisputably shall apply to a suit or proceeding
 under the 1957 Act as also the 1958 Act. Sub-section (2)
 of Section 62 of the 1957 Act provides for an additional
 forum. Such additional forum was provided so as to enable
 the author to file a suit who may not otherwise be in a D
 position to file a suit at different places where his copyright
 was violated. Parliament while enacting the Trade and
 Merchandise Marks Act in the year 1958 was aware of the
 provisions of the 1957 Act. It still did not Gboose to make
 a similar provision therein. Such an omission may be held E
 to be a conscious action on the part of Parliament. The
 intention of Parliament in not providing for an additional
 forum in relation to the violation of the 1958 Act is,
 therefore, clear and explicit. Parliament while enacting the
  Trade Marks Act, 1999 provided for such an additional F
  forum by enacting sub-section (2) of Section 134 of the
  Trade Marks Act. The court shall not, it is well settled,
  readily presume the existence of jurisdiction of a court
 which was not conferred by the statute. For the purpose of
  attracting the jurisdiction of a court in terms of sub-section G·
  (2) of Section 62 of the 1957 Act, the conditions precedent
  specified therein must be fulfilled, the requisites wherefore
  are that the plaintiff must actually and voluntarily reside to
  carry on business or personally work for gain.

 For the purpose of invoking the jurisdiction of a court only    H
    796       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2013] 17 S.C.R.


A          because two causes of action joined in terms of the
          provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, the same would
          not mean that thereby the jurisdiction can be conferred
          upon a court which had jurisdiction to try only the suit in
          respect of one cause of action and not the other. Recourse
8         to the additional forum, however, in a given case, may be
          taken if both the causes of action arise within the
          jurisdiction of the coart which otherwise had the necessary
          jurisdiction to decide all the issues."

C       18. This legal position has been reiterated in the case of
    Dabur_tndia (supra) as under:-

          "34. What then would be meant by a composite ~mit? ,A
          composite suit would not entitle a court to entertain a suit
          in respect whereof it has no jurisdiction, territorial or
D         otherwise. Order 2 Rule 3 of the Code specifically states
          so and, thus, there is no reason as to why the same should
          be ignored. A composite suit within the provisions of the
          1957 Act as considered in Dhodha House1, therefore,
          would mean the suit which is founded on infringement of
E         a copyright and wherein the incidental power of the court
          is required to be invoked. A plaintiff may seek a remedy
          which can otherwise be granted by the court. It was that
          aspect of the matter which had not been considered in
          Dhodha House but it never meant that two suits having
F
          different causes of action can be clubbed together as a
          composite suit."

        19. We see no conflict in the ratio of law laid down in the
  aforesaid two cases. In both the cases, it has been held that
  for the purpose of invoking the juris<!iction of the court in a
G composite suit, both the causes of action must arise within the
  jurisdiction of the court which otherwise had the necessary
  jurisdiction to decide all the issues. However, the jurisdiction
  cannot be conferred by joining two causes of action in the same
  suit when the court has jurisdiction to try the suit only in respect
H of one cause of action and not the other. In Dabur India (supra)
  PARAGON RUBBER INDUSTRIES v. PRAGATHI                    797
  RUBBER MILLS [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.]
the ratio in Dhodha House has been explained. In Dhodha            A
House, the law was stated in the ~following terms :

    "54. For the purpose of invoking the jurisdiction of a court
    only because two causes of action joined in terms of the
    provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, lh!l same would     B
    not mean that thereby the jurisdiction can be conferred
    upon a court which had jurisdiction. to try only the suit in
    respect of one cause of action and not the other. Recourse
    tD the additional forum, however, in a given case, may be
    taken if both the causes of action arise within the            C
    jurisdiction of the court which otherwise had the necessary
    jurisdiction to decide all the issues.

    55. In this case we have not examined the question as to
    whether if a cause of action arises under the 1957 Act and
    the violation of the provisions of the Trade Marks Act is      D
    only incidental, a composite suit will lie or not, as such a
    question does not arise in this case."

     20. In our opinion, the aforesaid observation is self
explanatory and need no further clarification. We also do not
                                                                   E
find any substance in the submission of Mr. Dave that there is
any conflict between the law laid down in Dabur (supra) and
Exphar SA (supra). In the case of Dabur (supra), this Court
distinguished the judgment Exphar SA in the following terms :

    "31. Exphar SA cannot be said to have any application in       F
    the instant case. The question which arose for
    consideration therein was as to whether the jurisdiction of
    a court under sub-section (2) of Section 62 of the 1957
    Act is wider than that of the court specified under the Code
    of Civil Procedure and thus a person instituting a suit        G
    having any claini on the ownership of the copyright which
    has been infringed, would not be a ground for holding that
    he would not come within the purview of sub-section (2)
    Section 62 of the 1957 Act, as he had been served with a
    "cease and desist" notice, Of)ining: (SCC p. 693, para 13)     H
    798 SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2013) 17 S.C.R.


A            "13. It is, therefore, clear that the object and reason
             for the introduction of sub-section (2) of Section 62
             was not to restrict the owners of the copyright to
             exercise their rights but to remove any impediment
             from their doing so. Section 62(2) cannot be read
B            as limiting the jurisdiction of the District Court only
             to cases where the person instituting the suit or
             other proceeding, or where there are more than
             one such persons, any of them actually and
             voluntarily resides or carries on business or
c            presently works for gain. It prescribes an additional
             ground for attracting the jurisdiction of a court over
             and above the 'normal' grounds as laid down in
             Section 20 of the Code."

      32. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that Parliament
D     having inserted sub-section (2) in Section 62 of the 1957
      Act, the jurisdiction of the court thereunder would be wider
      than the one under Section 20 of the Code. The object and
      reasons for enactment of sub-section (2) of Section 62
      would also appear from the report of the Committee, as
E     has been noticed by this Court being a provision which has
      been specially designed to confer an extra benefit upon
      the authors who were not in a position to instate copyright
      infringement proceeding before the courts. It is in the,
      aforementioned context the law laid down by this Court in .
F     para 13 of Dhodha House must be understood.

      33. If the impediment is sought to be removed by inserting
      an incidental provision, there cannot be any doubt the court
      could be entitled to pass an interim order, but the same
      by no stretch of imagination can be extended to a cause
G
      of action which is founded on separate set of facts as also
      rights and liabilities of a party under a different Act. In
      Dhodha House, although Exphar Sa was not noticed, the
      distinction would be apparent from the following: (Dhodha
      House case, SCC p. 56, paras 50-51)
H
  PARAGON RUBBER INDUSTRIES v. PRAGATHI                      799
  RUBBER MILLS [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.]
            "50. In this case, the Delhi High Court could not        A
            have invoked its jurisdiction in terms of the 1957
       -.   Act. The primary ground upon which the jurisdiction
            of the Original Side of the High Court was invoked
            was the violation of the 1958 Act, but in relation
            thereto, the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section    B
            62 of the 1957 Act could not be invoked.

            51. The plaintiff was not a resident of Delhi. It has
            not been able to establish that it carries on any
            business at Delhi. For our purpose, the question as
            to whether the defendant had been selling its            C
            produce in Delhi or not is wholly irrelevant (sic). It
            is possible.that the goods manufactured by the
            plaintiff are available in the market of Delhi or they
            are sold in Delhi but that by itself would not mean
            that the plaintiff carries on any business in Delhi."    D

     21. We are, however, of the opinion that the High Court
has correctly held that the provision contained in Section 134
of the. 1999 Act, would not come to the aid of the plaintiff.
Although, the 1999 Act was enacted on 30th December, 1999, E
it came into force on 15th September, 2003 vide S.O.
1048(E), dated 15th September, 2003, published in the Gazette
of India, Extra., Pt. II, Sec. 3(ii), dated 15th September, 2003.
Since the suit in this case was filed on 19th March, 2001, it
would be adjudicated under the 1958 Act. The 1958 Act does
                                                                   F
not contain a provision similar to the provision contained in
Section 62(2) of the 1957 Act. Parliament being aware of the
provisions of the 1957 Act still did not incorporate the same in
the 1958 Act. Therefore, it can not be read into the 1958 Act
by implication. The High Court had correctly concluded that the
suit of the plaintiff (appellant) was a composite one.            ·G

     22. Having said this, we are still not inclined to interfere
with the order passed by the High Court permitting the plaintiff
to amend the plaint. The High Court was mindful of the fact
that under the 1999 Act, a composite suit could be filed and         H
    800      SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2013] 17 S.C.R.


A would be maintainable by the Court at Kottayam. The Court
  was aware thafthe plaintiff has filed the suit on 19th. March,
  2001, but the 1999 Act was not enforced till 15th September,
  2003. In our opinion, the High Court has passed the order in
  exerdse of its discretionary powers taking into consideration
8 the entire facts and circumstances of the case. The discretion
  exercised by the High Court can not be said to be either
  erroneous or perverse. It has been exeri:ised only to avoid
  multiplicity of litigation. The defendant (respondent) could not
  dispute that in so far as suit predicated on the Copy Right is
  concerned, the Court at Kottayam is having requisite
C jurisdiction in view of the provisions of Section 62(2) of the
  Copy Right Act. Therefore, had the suit been filed for violation
  of copy right alone, the Court at Kottayam could validly entertain
  the same. By permitting the plaintiff to amend the plaint so as
  that the suit will be maintainable before the District Court,
D Kottayam, no error was committed by the High Court.

       23. In view of the observations made above, both the
   appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs.
   Kalpana K. Tripathy                            Appeals dismissed.