The Dispute in Brief
Rukhmani Keshwani, trading as Vishwas Agarbatti Store (Ajmer, Rajasthan), claimed prior and continuous use since 1995 of the trademark and trade dress "RADHEY KRISHNA" for agarbattis. She sued Raju Agarbatti Works (also of Ajmer) and another party for selling deceptively similar products under the marks "Lucky Radha Krishna" and "Harsh Radha Krishna."
With both parties rooted in Ajmer — where the seizure and enforcement action had even taken place — the Commercial Court in Shahdara, Delhi twice attempted to throw the suit out for lack of territorial jurisdiction: first at the pleadings stage (reversed on appeal and remanded for trial), and then again after a full trial, holding that Rajasthan, not Delhi, was the "natural forum."
The narrow question before the Division Bench: does evidence of (a) the plaintiff's own online deliveries into Delhi and (b) the defendants' IndiaMart listings — bearing their verified GST number and business address, but with no evidence of a single completed sale into Delhi — amount to a "part cause of action" under Section 20(c) CPC, read with Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and Section 62 of the Copyright Act, 1957?
What the Trial Court Got Wrong — and Why the High Court Reversed It
The Trial Court had leaned heavily on the Supreme Court's decision in Indian Performing Rights Society v. Sanjay Dalia (2015), reading it as a broad caution against forum shopping that effectively confined IP suits to the place where the parties principally carry on business.
The High Court disagreed. IPRS is a narrow anti-abuse doctrine: it stops a plaintiff from dragging a defendant to a forum with no real connection to the dispute merely because the plaintiff maintains a subordinate office there. It was never intended to shut out jurisdiction in a forum where an independent, substantive part of the cause of action genuinely arises — including through online commercial activity.
Critically, the Bench drew a procedural distinction that matters for litigators: at the Order VII Rule 11 ("demurrer") stage, a court must take the plaint's assertions at face value. But this case had gone through full trial. The plaintiff had led unrebutted documentary evidence of commercial deliveries into Delhi, and the defendants had admitted in cross-examination that the GST details and business address on their IndiaMart listing were their own — and that they had taken no steps to remove or dispute the listing. On settled evidence law, unchallenged material evidence is treated as admitted.
The Doctrinal Chain: From "Passive Websites" to "Purposeful Commercial Targeting"
| Case | Principle Established |
|---|---|
| Banyan Tree Holding v. A. Murali Krishna Reddy (2009) | First drew the line between a passive website (mere information) and an interactive one capable of concluding a transaction — only the latter could found jurisdiction. |
| World Wrestling Entertainment v. Reshma Collection (2014) | An interactive website over which a transaction could be concluded is enough to constitute "carrying on business" in a forum — an actual concluded sale is not required. |
| Kohinoor Seed Fields India v. Veda Seed Sciences (2025) | Extended the WWE logic squarely into IP infringement: once a defendant consciously projects goods through an interactive platform enabling solicitation, inquiry or purchase in a forum state, that is a material part of the cause of action — proof of a completed sale is unnecessary. |
| Rukhmani Keshwani (2026) | Applies this chain to reverse a post-trial jurisdictional dismissal: admitted, GST-linked online listings plus documented deliveries suffice — even where both parties are otherwise rooted in a single home state. |
The throughline: Indian courts have moved decisively away from requiring proof of a concluded transaction within the forum, toward a purposeful-availment style test familiar to practitioners versed in US "minimum contacts" jurisprudence or the EU's "directed activity" tests under the Brussels Recast Regulation.
What Was Actually Decided (and What Wasn't)
- Decided: The Delhi courts do have territorial jurisdiction. The Trial Court's return of the plaint was set aside.
- Decided: Interactive online listings with verified, admitted business details, plus documented cross-border deliveries, are legally sufficient to establish a "part cause of action" — without proof of a completed infringing sale within the forum.
- Not decided: The underlying trademark and copyright infringement claims. The suit stands restored to the Trial Court, with parties directed to appear on 10 July 2026 — including on the defendants' still-unresolved argument that the plaintiff's registration is territorially confined to Rajasthan.
- Not decided: Liability for listings potentially placed by third parties — a point the Kohinoor Seed Fields extract itself leaves to trial where relevant.
Jurisdiction is now settled, but the case — and the merits — continue. This is a procedural win, not a final judgment on infringement.
Practical Implications
For foreign law firms and IP practitioners advising clients selling into India: A client with no physical presence at a particular place can still be sued there if its goods are listed on marketplaces reachable from — and arguably targeted at — those cities. "We have no office there" is no longer a reliable jurisdictional shield. Conversely, plaintiffs with a genuine India-wide online sales footprint have meaningfully expanded venue options beyond their home state.
For Indian law firms: This judgment, alongside Kohinoor Seed Fields and Raju Kumar v. Vinod Sah (now affirmed by the Supreme Court), consolidates a Delhi High Court line that should be treated as close to settled law within that jurisdiction. Defendants resisting Delhi jurisdiction on Order VII Rule 11 applications will need to affirmatively disprove purposeful targeting — ideally before any admissions are made in cross-examination.
For corporate clients and start-ups selling via marketplaces (IndiaMart, Amazon, Flipkart, Instamojo and the like): marketplace listings are not jurisdictionally neutral. GST-linked, address-verified listings can and will be used as an admission of purposeful business activity in any city those listings reach. Businesses should:
- Audit which marketplace listings display verifiable business identifiers (GST number, registered address).
- Recognise that disputing or promptly removing a disputed listing may carry evidentiary weight if litigation risk is anticipated.
- Factor in that a dispute originating from a single-state operation can now realistically be litigated in a metro forum far from the business's home base — with attendant cost and logistics implications.
For brand owners and licensors: The ruling strengthens the hand of trademark and copyright owners seeking to litigate in a convenient, IP-experienced forum (such as Delhi) against infringers based elsewhere in India, so long as the infringer's goods demonstrably reach consumers in that forum through online channels — a common fact pattern given the ubiquity of B2B marketplaces like IndiaMart.