Chunulal Seetaram vs G.S. Muthiah and Brothers and Others

Rajamannar C.J.

Both these appeals have been filed u/s 76 of the Trade Marks Act against decisions of the Registrar regarding rectification of the Trade Marks

Register. u/s 76(1)

Save as otherwise expressly provided in the Act, an appeal shall lie from any decision of the Registrar under the Act or the rules made thereunder

to the High Court having Jurisdiction."" The office of the Registrar of Trade Marks is situated in Bombay. The Register of Trade Marks is kept at

Bombay and the rectification is made in that register. '' It must, therefore, be held that the High Court having jurisdiction in the matter is the High

Court at Bombay. There is ample authority to support this conclusion in the decisions in Abdul Ghani v. Registrar of Trade Marks, AIR 1947 Lah

171, Tapton Tea Company Vs. The Liptons Ltd. and Another, and Satya Deo Gupta Vs. Amrit Dhara Pharmacy, . Learned counsel for the

respondents has also brought to our notice two un-reported decisions of the Calcutta and Punjab High Courts respectively taking the same view,

but we do not think ir necessary to refer to them. The appeals to this court are, therefore, incompetent. We direct that the memoranda of appeals

in these two appeals he returned to the parties to be presented to the proper court within two months from this date. The appellants in each appeal

shall pay half costs of the appeal to the respondents in each appeal.

The appellant will pay half the costs of the contesting party respondent. Advocate''s fees Rs. 150 in each case.