Log in or register
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 26 FEBRUARY 2009

Lack Of Jurisdiction: Shaw Wallace´ Plaint Returned

Lex Orbis
Explore more from Lex Orbis

Jurisdiction is undoubtedly the most important consideration while filling a suit. Being, a subject incorporated in the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 the issue presented itself forth the Delhi High Court in the case of "Shaw Wallace v. M.P. Beer Products" [2009 (39) PTC 129].

IndiaIntellectual Property
Author LinkedIn connections

Jurisdiction is undoubtedly the most important consideration while filling a suit. Being, a subject incorporated in the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 the issue presented itself forth the Delhi High Court in the case of Shaw Wallace v. M.P. Beer Products [2009 (39) PTC 129]. The plaint in this case was returned on the ground of lack of jurisdiction in spite of both the parties submitting to its jurisdiction, stating:

"When a Court had no jurisdiction at all in the matter, by consent the parties cannot confer jurisdiction. Only that Court would have jurisdiction which according to law has jurisdiction."

In an application made under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, praying for the rejection of the plaint, the ground that the Court had no territorial jurisdiction vested in it to entertain the suit was raised. Dealing with a matter of trademark infringement, copyright and passing off, the mark in contention was the usage of "5000" or "PRESIDENT 5000" which was

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Register for freeORLog in

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Article

Copy, Right? ANI Media Pvt. Ltd. v. Open AI OpCo LLC

When an artificial intelligence system is trained on copyrighted news content, and later answers a user’s question using what it learned, has the law been broken? On 24th July 2026, the Delhi High Court answered that question, at least for now. In ANI Media Pvt. Ltd. v. Open AI OpCo LLC, Justice Amit Bansal declined to grant an interim injunction against OpenAI, holding, on a prima facie, interim stage view, that the company’s use of ANI’s news content to train its large language models (“LLMs”) falls within the fair dealing exception under Section 52(1)(a) of the Copyright Act, 1957
IndiaIntellectual Property
S.S. Rana & Co.
S.S. Rana & Co.
Article

AI Training Data, Copyright Risk And Commercial Liability: What Businesses Need To Know

On 8 October 2026, USA Today Co. and its affiliated newspaper companies, which publish 19 titles including USA Today, the Detroit Free Press and The Arizona Republic, sued seven OpenAI entities in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint alleges that OpenAI copied their journalism to train its models, stripped identifying information from it, and now uses those models to give ChatGPT users summaries that substitute for the original reporting. The publishers seek more than USD 250 million in damages, an injunction and an order for the destruction of models and training sets containing their content.
IndiaIntellectual Property
Legitpro Law
Legitpro Law