INTRODUCTION
The High Court of Delhi, in a judgment delivered by Justice A.J. Bhambhani on 25th August 2026, has declined to resolve a live conflict in its own case law on whether a corporation with its registered office and cause of action both situated in one city can nonetheless sue in Delhi merely because its advertisement campaign is accessible online within the Court’s territorial limits. Instead, in a suit filed by Hindustan Unilever Limited against Kwick Living (I) Private Limited, the Court has referred the question to a Larger Bench, holding that the divergence among Supreme Court and Delhi High Court precedents on territorial jurisdiction for internet-based IP disputes could not properly be settled at a Single Judge level.
BACKGROUND
Hindustan Unilever Limited sought a permanent injunction restraining Kwick Living from broadcasting a comparative advertisement campaign, “War on What’s Hidden,” which allegedly disparaged HUL’s products Vim and Surf Excel through unsubstantiated claims, disseminated via YouTube, Instagram, hoardings, and the defendant’s website. At the stage of issuing summons, the defendant raised a preliminary objection to the Delhi High Court’s territorial jurisdiction, and the Court reserved judgment on this limited question alone, without going into the merits of the injunction sought.
KEY POINTS
- The defendant argued that both parties have their registered and principal offices in Mumbai, that the plaint itself pleaded only a Mumbai hoarding as a confirmed instance of the campaign, and that under the Supreme Court’s ruling in Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd. v. Sanjay Dalia, a plaintiff whose cause of action arises where its principal office is situated must sue there and nowhere else.
- Plaintiff argued that Delhi Courts have jurisdiction according to Section 20(c) of the Civil Procedure Code, Section 134(2) of Trade Marks Act, 1999 and Section 62(2) of Copyright Act, 1957 because the campaign is available in Delhi, and the website of the defendant allows sale of its goods in Delhi along with the separate corporate office of HUL in Delhi. The Court held that the previous cases were indeed split in relation to the facts at issue. Sanjay Dalia is an example wherein the principle of limiting the corporate plaintiff to the forum where its principal office and cause of action lie has been set, but instances from the High Court of Delhi, such as Banyan Tree Holding, indicate that of “purposeful availment”.
- However, the case of World Wrestling Entertainment Inc. vs Kohinoor Seed Fields Private Limited and another treated an online website that is able to transact as one market place wherever the site is available, whereas Burger King stated that ‘use’ of the trade mark, including advertisement, is a ground for a cause of action wherever such ‘use’ occurs.
- To make things more complex, Nilesh Girkar considered the availability of content on OTT throughout the country as enough to constitute a cause of action in Delhi, and Astral Ltd. considered that concurrent jurisdiction exists at both principal and subordinate places of a plaintiff wherever the cause of action occurs.
- The Court noted that a Division Bench in Kohinoor Seed Fields had itself expressed reservations about the correctness of Ultra Home Construction, a prior Division Bench decision systematising Sanjay Dalia’s application to corporate plaintiffs, leaving the law internally inconsistent even at the Division Bench level.
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
Rather than resolving the preliminary objection itself, the Court formulated three questions for consideration by a Larger Bench: whether IP suits are governed solely by Section 20 CPC, Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, Section 62 of the Copyright Act, or an interplay of all three; whether a corporate plaintiff must sue only where its principal office is situated when part of the cause of action arises there; and what jurisdictional rule should govern online transactions in IP disputes given the conflicting approaches in Banyan Tree, World Wrestling Entertainment, and Kohinoor Seed Fields. The Registry has been directed to place the judgment before the Chief Justice for constitution of an appropriate Bench, with the matter to be addressed within one week given its recurring nature before the Court.
CONCLUSION
This reference leaves the underlying suit’s territorial jurisdiction, and by extension the interim injunction sought, undecided pending the Larger Bench’s ruling. The outcome will have considerable bearing on how corporations litigate IP and disparagement disputes arising from nationally accessible digital campaigns, and on whether “carries on business” in the e-commerce context can be read as conferring jurisdiction wherever a website is merely accessible, or whether courts will continue to require proof of purposeful targeting of the forum.
“PRIME LEGAL is a National Award-winning law firm with over two decades of experience across diverse legal sectors. We are dedicated to setting the standard for legal excellence in civil, criminal, and family law.”
WRITTEN BY: DRISHTITA BANIK
