Exphar SA and Anr. v Eupharma Laboratories Ltd. and Anr.

Facts

• The plaintiff instituted a suit for infringement at a place where it carried on business, relying on a special statutory provision permitting suit at that location
• The defendant challenged the forum, arguing that under the ordinary CPC principles for place of suing, the suit should have been instituted where the defendant resided or where the cause of action arose, not merely where the plaintiff conducted business

Issue

1. Whether a special statutory provision permitting a plaintiff to sue at the place where it carries on business operates independently of, and in addition to, the general place-of-suing rules under Section 20 CPC.

Held

• The Supreme Court held that special statutory provisions, such as those found in intellectual property statutes, granting a plaintiff the additional option to sue at the place where it carries on business, operate as supplementary fora, distinct from and in addition to the general rules under Section 20 CPC
• Such provisions are enacted in recognition of the practical difficulties a rights-holder may face in pursuing litigation only at the defendant's location or the place of the infringing act, particularly where infringement may occur across multiple jurisdictions
• The plaintiff was therefore entitled to institute the suit at its place of business, and this did not require satisfying the ordinary Section 20 CPC conditions independently

Ratio Decidendi

Special statutory provisions conferring an additional forum for suit, such as the plaintiff's place of business under intellectual property legislation, operate independently of and in addition to the general place-of-suing rules under Section 20 CPC, reflecting a deliberate legislative choice to ease the litigation burden on rights-holders.