1 2025:CGHC:29277 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 581 of 2025 1 - Mr. Chandan Sadija S/o Manoharlal Aged About 47 Years C/o Gurudev Jewellery, Address At -2/12, Banjara Road, In-Front Of Indar Store, Ravi Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh - 492001 2 - Mr. Vikas Nahlani S/o Chandra Kumar Nahlani Aged About 40 Years C/o Palak Payal, Address At - R.K. Boot House Line, In Front Of Nanda Garrage, Sarju Bagicha Road, Telipara, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) - 495001 ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Neeraj Jewellery, Through Its Proprietor - Neeraj Gupta, Aged About 48 Years, S/o Shri Suresh Chandra Gupta, Having Address At - Shop No.-14, Novelty Market, Banjari Road, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) - 492001 2 - Mr. Nishant Gupta S/o Shri Suresh Gupta Aged About 42 Years Having Address At - Shop No.-14, Novelty Market, Banjari Road, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) - 492001 ---- Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. Pankaj Singh, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 01.07.2025 1. The petitioners have filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- REKHA SINGH Digitally signed by REKHA SINGH -2- “A. This Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records of the case, and B. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside and quash the order dated 14.05.2025 passed by the learned Commercial Court (District Judge Level), Nava Raipur - Atal Nagar in I.A. No.04/2025, C.S. No. 03A/2024 (Neeraj Jewellery&Anr. v. Chandan Sadija &Anr.); and C. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to reject the plaint in C.S. No. 03A/2024 under Order VII Rule 11(a) & (d) CPC for want of territorial jurisdiction, for non-joinder of an indispensable party, and for mis- joinder of Defendant No. 2 and the distinct cause asserted against him; and/or D. In the alternative, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to return the plaint for presentation before a court of competent jurisdiction, in accordance with Order VII Rule 10 CPC; and E. This Hon'ble Court may also, be pleased to pass any other order in favor of the Petitioner as it may deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case with cost.” 2. Mr. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the respondents filed a suit for trademark infringement, passing off, permanent injunction and damages inter alia on the ground that they had the exclusive rights over the trademark “Neeraj” and alleged its infringement by the petitioners through the use of similar trademarks “Neeraj A1” and “Neeraj 100”. He would further submit that the petitioners moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC inter alia on the ground that the respondents/plaintiffs filed the civil suit before the Commercial Court without establishing its jurisdiction under Sections 19 & 20 of the CPC. It was pleaded that the Commercial Court lacks territorial jurisdiction over the subject matter. He would 3 further submit that the plaintiffs’ trademark originates from Mathura, Uttar Pradesh, where Mr. Agrawal resides and conducts his business, therefore, the suit with the Commercial Court in the State of Chhattisgarh is not maintainable. It is also stated that the cause of action arose in the State of UP. Mr. Singh, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would argue that Mr. Agrawal trading as “Pawan and Company”, has applied for the registration of the trademarks “Neeraj A1 and “Neeraj 100” before the Trademark Registry. Mr. Singh would also submit that the respondents improperly impleaded Mr. Chandan Sadija as defendant No.1 whereas he had no connection with the alleged infringement activities and the suit is not maintainable on account of misjoinder of the parties. Mr. Singh would further state that the respondents claimed damages below Rs.30 lakhs, therefore, the suit is not maintainable before the Commercial Court. Mr. Singh would also state that the learned Commercial Court rejected the application without considering the grounds raised by the petitioners. 3. I have heard Mr. Singh at length and perused the documents placed on the record. 4. Learned Commercial Court in para 13 has held that the respondents/plaintiffs have impleaded the defendants who are said to be carrying on their business within the territory of the State of -4- Chhattisgarh and indulged in Trademark violations as well as passing off plaintiffs’ products, therefore, the Commercial Court has the jurisdiction with regard to the subject matter of the suit. The finding arrived at by the learned Commercial Court appears to be reasonable and proper. 5. A perusal of the plaint averments and the application moved under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC would make it clear that the relief in respect of the trademark infringement is based on the aspect of passing off their trademark and the suit in respect thereof can be instituted. 6. With regard to the non-joinder of Mr. Pawan Kumar Agrawal as a party defendant, the respondents/plaintiffs have filed the suit for passing off and such a suit can very well be maintainable against the persons who are claimed to be dealing with the deceptively similar or counterfeit marks. 7. With regard to the valuation of the suit, petitioner No. 2 resides in Bilaspur and the plaintiffs have valued their suit at Rs.60 lacs. The plaintiffs have claimed damages from both petitioners, thus the plaintiffs have pleaded the jurisdiction properly. The plaintiffs have specifically pleaded the cause of action in para 34 of the plaint. 8. The Commercial Court has been vested with the jurisdiction to deal with cases where the value of the subject matter is more than Rs. 50 lacs and thus, the learned Commercial Court has the 5 pecuniary jurisdiction to deal with the matter. 9. Taking into consideration the observations, the facts discussed above and the findings recorded by the learned Commercial Court, I do not find good grounds to interfere with the order passed by the learned Commercial Court dated 14.05.2025. 10.Thus this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha