Astral Ltd. vs M/S Astral Marketing Syndicate & Anr.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment reserved on: 08.05.2026
% Judgment delivered on: 15.06.2026
+ CS(COMM) 294/2024
ASTRAL LTD. .....Plaintiff
versus
M/S ASTRAL MARKETING SYNDICATE
& ANR. .....Defendants
Advocates who appeared in this case
For the Plaintiff : Mr. Sachin Gupta, Ms. Mahima
Chanchalani, Ms. Prashansa Singh,
Mr. Rohit Pradhan, Mr. R. Jain & Mr.
Ajay, Advocates.
For the Defendants : Mr. Anchit Bhandari & Mr. Ashok
Mittal, Advocates for Defendant
No.1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA
JUDGMENT
TEJAS KARIA, J
I.A. 16193/2025
1. The present Application has been filed by Defendant No. 1 /
Applicant under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Code of
CS(COMM) 294/2024 Page 1 of 15
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:15.06.2026
19:14:30

Civil Procedure, 1908 (“ CPC ”) seeking rejection of the Plaint filed by the
Plaintiff.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT / DEFENDANT
NO. 1:
2. The learned Counsel for the Applicant / Defendant No. 1 advanced the
following submissions:
2.1. The Plaint is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of
the CPC on the grounds that this Court lacks territorial
jurisdiction to entertain the present Suit.
2.2. Under Section 20 of the CPC, a Suit may be instituted only
where the defendants reside, carry on business, or where the
cause of action, wholly or in part, arises. In the present case,
Defendant No. 1 carries on business exclusively at Ahmedabad,
as is acknowledged by the Plaintiff in the Memorandum of
Parties to the Plaint as well as in the supporting documents
placed on record. Further, the Plaintiff’s principal place of
business is also situated in Ahmedabad. Accordingly, this Court
dees not have the territorial jurisdiction to try the present Suit.
2.3. The Plaintiff has sought to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court
on two principal grounds: firstly, that Defendant No. 1 intends
to trade across India; and secondly, that Defendant No. 1 is
selling the alleged infringing goods and delivering within the
territorial jurisdiction of this Court, however, Defendant No. 1
carries on business solely in Ahmedabad and has never sold any
of the alleged infringing goods outside Ahmedabad.
CS(COMM) 294/2024 Page 2 of 15
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:15.06.2026
19:14:30

2.4. A mere advertisement having spillover circulation within the
territorial jurisdiction of this Court is insufficient to confer
jurisdiction. In the present case, the advertisement on the
Justdial portal was specifically directed at customers in the
State of Gujarat, as is evident from the contents of the
advertisement itself.
2.5. In any event, even assuming that Defendant No. 1 had
advertised its alleged infringing products in Delhi, such fact
alone would not vest this Court with jurisdiction to try the
present Suit, as the Plaintiff has not pleaded any commercial
transaction, sale, or delivery within the territorial jurisdiction of
this Court. There is nothing on record to show that any order for
the alleged infringing products was ever placed in Delhi
through Justdial.
2.6. Further, the mere listing of products on a passive website does
not constitute a cause of action sufficient to maintain the Suit
before this Court.
3. In view of the foregoing submissions, it is prayed that the present
Application be allowed.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF:
4. The learned Counsel for the Non-Applicant / Plaintiff advanced the
following submissions:
4.1. For the purpose of deciding the objection to the territorial
jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the present Suit, the
averments contained in the Plaint are required to be assumed to
be true. The Plaintiff has specifically pleaded that Defendant
CS(COMM) 294/2024 Page 3 of 15
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:15.06.2026
19:14:30

No. 1 is carrying on business in Delhi through an interactive e-
commerce platform, namely Justdial, as a result whereof
consumers within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court are
likely to be confused and misled into purchasing Defendant No.
1’s products under the belief that the same emanate from the
Plaintiff.
4.2. Defendant No. 1 has not denied that the Justdial listing of the
alleged infringing products pertains to Defendant No. 1. The
said listing enables consumers to download Defendant No. 1’s
business card and catalogue and further permits them to submit
inquiries and initiate chats with Defendant No. 1.
4.3. The targeting of customers need not necessarily involve an
aggressive act of marketing; the mere presence of a website and
its accessibility to consumers within the territorial limits of this
Court would be sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon this Court.
5. In view of the foregoing submissions, it is prayed that the present
Application be dismissed.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS:
6. Heard the learned Counsel for the Parties and perused the material
placed on record.
7. The Plaintiff has pleaded that this Court has jurisdiction to try the
present Suit in Paragraph Nos. 32 to 34 of the Plaint, which are reproduced
as under:
“ 32. This Hon'ble Court has jurisdiction to entertain and try the
present suit under the provisions of Section 20 CPC as the
Defendant is carrying on its business at Delhi, which is within the
CS(COMM) 294/2024 Page 4 of 15
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:15.06.2026
19:14:30

jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. It is pertinent to note that the
Defendant No.1 's products under the impugned trade mark ASTRAL
are being advertised, and listed through interactive e-commerce
website, namely, Justdial
<https://www.justdial.com/jdmmi/Ahmedabad/Astral- Marketing-
Syndicate-Nr- Vijay-Mill-Naroda- Road/079PXX79-XX79-
230728160626- W5K8_BZDET/catalogue?nid=10460895> which is
accessible and visible to traders, customers and public at large
throughout India including Delhi. Through the said website, the
Defendants can be contacted, and orders for the impugned products
can be placed all across India including Delhi.
33. It is noteworthy that JustDial is an Indian e-commerce company
which provides B2B and customer sales services via its web portal.
The Defendant No.1 is believed to already have substantial
customers at Delhi and are selling the products under the impugned
mark at Delhi. The Plaintiffs have their sales & marketing office at
Delhi and is selling its products under the trade mark ASTRAL at
Delhi. The customers within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court
are getting confused and are being misled to procure the Defendant
No.1 's products, which is causing injury to the Plaintiffs at Delhi.
The reasonable risk of confusion and riding piggyback over
Plaintiffs' goodwill thus get heightened when identical trade mark
ASTRAL is being by the Defendants.
34. This Hon'ble Court has the jurisdiction to entertain and try the
present suit under Section 20 of Code of Civil Procedure since the
Defendants' are selling its products under the impugned mark at
Delhi. The Plaintiff is also selling its products at Delhi. ”
8. Defendant No. 1 contends that the Plaintiff has sought to invoke the
jurisdiction of this Court by asserting that Defendant No. 1 intends to sell its
alleged infringing products across the country and that such products are
available for sale in Delhi, however, Defendant No. 1 carries on business
CS(COMM) 294/2024 Page 5 of 15
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:15.06.2026
19:14:30

only in Ahmedabad and has never sold any such goods in Delhi. Defendant
No. 1 further contended that the principal place of business of both
Defendant No. 1 and the Plaintiff is Ahmedabad and that, consequently, this
Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the present Suit.
9. Per contra , the Plaintiff contends that, since Defendant No. 1 is
carrying on business in Delhi through the internet platform Justdial, a part of
the cause of action has arisen in Delhi. The Plaintiff further submitted that
that it has a subordinate office in Delhi and that, therefore, this Court has
jurisdiction to try the present Suit under Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act,
1999 (“ the Act ”) read with Section 20 of the CPC
10. It is a settled principle that, in an application seeking Return of the
Plaint, an objection as to the jurisdiction is to be considered on demurrer .
Consequently, at this preliminary stage, all the facts pleaded in the Plaint are
required to be assumed to be true and the Plaintiff is not required to be
called upon to establish the same by leading evidence. The Court must,
therefore, proceed on the footing that the averments contained in the Plaint
are correct and determine whether it lacks jurisdiction to entertain the
present Suit.
11. In the Suits for Trade Mark infringement and passing off, the cause of
action arises at the place where the confusion or deception constituting the
infringement or passing off occurs or where the plaintiff suffers injury.
Accordingly, the Court within whose territorial jurisdiction such cause of
action arises, whether wholly or in part, would be vested with the
jurisdiction to entertain any try any suit.
12. In the present Suit, the Plaintiff has specifically pleaded that
Defendant No. 1’s alleged infringing products bearing ‘Astral’ mark are
CS(COMM) 294/2024 Page 6 of 15
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:15.06.2026
19:14:30

being advertised and offered for sale on the third-party platform, Justdial. In
support of the said submission, learned Counsel for the Plaintiff drew the
attention of this Court to Document No. 17 filed along with the Plaintiff’s
documents, which reflects that Defendant No. 1’s listing on Justdial in
respect of the alleged infringing products.
13. The learned Counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that the said listing on
Justdial provides Defendant No. 1’s contact number, whereby enabling
prospective customers to get in touch with Defendant No. 1. It was further
submitted on behalf of the Plaintiff that chats may be initiated and enquiries
may be sent through the said page. The Plaintiff’s Counsel further submitted
that Defendant No. 1’s catalogue of the alleged infringing product is also
accessible through the said listing on Justdial.
14. This Court in Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v. Artura
Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine Del 8642, has held that the
‘Contact Us’ page can be sufficient to make a website interactive so as to
confer jurisdiction on this Court in an internet-based Trade Mark dispute.
The relevant portion of the said decision is reproduced as under:
“ 27. The principles governing internet jurisdiction were laid down
in Banyan Tree (supra), which established that the Court must apply
the “ sliding scale test ” and “ effects test ” to determine jurisdiction
in internet based disputes. These tests are to be applied to determine
the nature and extent of the Defendant's activities and whether they
amount to purposeful availment of the forum, and not to deny
jurisdiction at the threshold stage where the Plaintiff has made
specific averments about website accessibility and interactivity.
28. The Plaintiff has pleaded in the Plaint that the Impugned
Website has a “Contact Us” page inviting users to “write to us” for
services, which amounts to an invitation to potential customers
CS(COMM) 294/2024 Page 7 of 15
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:15.06.2026
19:14:30

including those in Delhi, and has further pleaded that the Defendant
has made available Product Brochures mentioning the Impugned
Marks for download from the Impugned Website, and that the
Impugned Marks, ‘NEOVITAL’ is actively listed on the Subject
Website, which explicitly declares its purpose as facilitating trade
opportunities and promoting products and services online for the
pharmaceutical industry. These averments, which must be accepted
as true at this stage, establish prima facie that the Defendant has
made its products accessible to consumers in Delhi through internet
platforms, and that the Defendant is purposefully availing itself of
the forum by maintaining an online presence that is accessible to
and targets consumers in Delhi, thereby creating the potential for
confusion and deception among Delhi-based consumers who may
encounter these Impugned Marks online.
29. The Defendant's argument that no sales invoice or purchase
order has been produced showing delivery of products in Delhi will
not be bar the jurisdiction of this Court so long as there is averment
in the Plaint that there the website offered by the Defendant is
containing the products with the Impugned Marks, the same is
accessible to consumers in Delhi and it is interactive in nature. The
Defendant's contention that the Impugned Website is merely
“passive plus” and does not facilitate commercial transactions
requires further requires leading of evidence and cannot be
conclusively determined at this stage without examination of the
complete functionality of the “Contact Us” page inviting users to
write for services and the availability of product brochures. Such
functionality of the Impugned Website can reasonably be construed
as facilitating commercial transactions, and whether the same
amount to sufficient interactivity to establish jurisdiction is a mixed
question of law and fact requiring determination at the stage of trial.
30. The distinction between passive, passive plus, and interactive
websites as laid down in Banyan Tree (supra) is not a rigid
categorization that can be mechanically applied at the preliminary
stage, but requires detailed examination of the actual functionality,
purpose, and effect of the Impugned Website, which can only be
CS(COMM) 294/2024 Page 8 of 15
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:15.06.2026
19:14:30

properly undertaken through trial after Parties lead evidence about
the nature of online interactions, the purpose, functionality and
effect of the Impugned Website, and whether any confusion or
deception actually occurred in Delhi.
31. The third-party listing on the Subject Website, which the
Defendant characterizes as a mere directory, must be viewed in light
of the Plaintiff's pleading that this platform explicitly declares its
purpose as facilitating trade opportunities and promoting products
online for the pharmaceutical industry, and contains an interactive
enquiry form soliciting product requirements from potential buyers,
which averments must be accepted as true under
the demurrer principle. Whether this amounts to sufficient
commercial activity to establish jurisdiction or is merely a passive
directory listing is a question of fact requiring examination through
evidence and cannot be summarily determined at this preliminary
stage in favor of the Defendant.
32. As observed by this Court in Tata Sons (supra), that the
targeting need not be a very aggressive act of marketing aiming at a
particular set of customers and mere looming presence of a website
in a geography and ability of the customers therein to access the
website is sufficient, in a given case.
33. The issue of territorial jurisdiction, being a mixed question of
law and fact, involving factual controversies about the nature and
extent of online activities may not be always resolved at the
threshold stage. The Plaintiff has made specific averments that the
Defendant's products under the Impugned Marks are accessible to
consumers in Delhi through the Impugned Website and the Subject
Website. This Court has found that the Impugned Marks prima
facie are deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's Trade Marks. The
Nutritional Supplement Brochure available on Impugned Website
mentions the Impugned Marks. Such accessibility of the products
containing the Impugned Marks on the Impugned Website creates
the likelihood of confusion and deception among the consumers
within the jurisdiction of this Court, who can freely access the
CS(COMM) 294/2024 Page 9 of 15
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:15.06.2026
19:14:30

Impugned Website and contact the Defendant through “Contact Us”
page for availing the services. The only service the Defendant offers
is manufacturing and sale of the products that includes products
containing the Impugned Marks. This amounts to part of the cause
of action having arisen in Delhi.
34. The question whether through the “Contract Us” page on the
Impugned Website, the Defendant has actually entered into
commercial transactions of sale with Delhi-based consumers and
whether the Defendant is only having export-only business would
require leading of evidence by both the Parties and will have to be
established at the stage of trial in this Suit. All these disputed
questions of fact cannot be determined at this stage without
examination of evidence, including the evidence about the actual
functionality of the Impugned Website and the Subject Website, the
nature of enquiries received by the Defendant through these
platforms, whether any such enquiries originated from Delhi, the
intended market for the Defendant's products, and whether Delhi-
based consumers have been exposed to or confused by the Impugned
Marks.
35. The extent and nature of the Defendant's online activities by
publishing the Nutritional Supplement Brochure mentioning the
Impugned Marks on the Impugned Website and having the “Contact
Us” page are sufficient to establish jurisdiction of this Court and
permit the Suit to proceed to trial rather than summarily returning
the Plaint at this preliminary stage.
36. The jurisdictional objection raised by the Defendant involves
disputed questions of fact that cannot be satisfactorily resolved at
this stage. The bare perusal of the Plaint and documents filed
therewith disclose that part of the cause of action has arisen in
Delhi through the accessibility of the Defendant's products under the
Impugned Marks to Delhi-based consumers via the Impugned
Website and the Subject Website. The true nature and extent of the
Defendant's online activities, the purpose and effect of maintaining
product information containing the Impugned Marks and inviting
CS(COMM) 294/2024 Page 10 of 15
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:15.06.2026
19:14:30

the consumers to contact the Defendant for availing services of the
Defendant amounting to sufficient purposeful availment to establish
jurisdiction resulting in actual confusion or injury to Plaintiff in
Delhi would require detailed examination after the trial stage rather
than summary dismissal at this threshold stage under Order VII
Rule 10 of the CPC.
37. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the proper course is
to allow the Suit to proceed for trial after completion of pleadings
and framing of Issues, where the Defendant's objection to territorial
jurisdiction of this Court shall be framed and decided as a
Preliminary Issue, after both Parties are given opportunity to lead
evidence on the factual aspects, including evidence about the nature
and functionality of the Impugned Website and the Subject Website,
the extent of the Defendant's activities in Delhi, whether any
commercial transactions or enquiries originated from Delhi, and
whether any confusion or deception occurred amongst Delhi-based
consumers. ”
15. Relying upon the decision in Sun Pharmaceutical (supra), a co-
ordinate bench of this Court in Ravinder Singh v. Regoshin Healthcare (P)
Ltd. , 2026 SCC OnLine Del 3716, observed as under:
“ 25. Plaintiff has also averred in the plaint that Defendants' product
listings are visible on third-party e-commerce websites such as
Justdial and Indiamart. Dealing with this aspect, in Sun
Pharmaceutical (supra), the Court has held that the contention of
the Defendant therein that the website is only a directory, must be
viewed in light of Plaintiff's pleading that this platform facilitates
trade opportunities and promotes products as also contains an
enquiry in the form of soliciting product requirements, which must
be accepted as true under the demurrer principle. In the instant
case, Plaintiff has averred in the plaint that product listings of the
Defendants are available on Justdial and India Mart and specific
URLs have been given in paragraph 36 of the plaint. Applying the
CS(COMM) 294/2024 Page 11 of 15
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:15.06.2026
19:14:30

aforesaid judgment, at this threshold stage, it is enough to state that
the websites which are accessible at Delhi, do constitute facilitators
by which the Defendants advertise and promote the products of the
Defendants and allure the potential customers to buy them and this
prima facie gives rise to part cause of action in Delhi…. ”
16. A perusal of the aforesaid judgments makes it manifest that third-
party platforms such as Justdial, being accessible to consumers within the
territorial jurisdiction of this Court, operate as facilitators for the
advertisement and promotion of the products listed thereon, and play a
significant role in inducing prospective customers to purchase such
products.
17. In Tata Sons P. Ltd. v. Hakunamatata Tata Founders and Ors. ,
2022 SCC OnLine Del 2968, this Court held that the targeting of customers
need not necessarily involve an aggressive act of marketing directed at a
particular class of customers and that, in an appropriate case, the mere
online presence of a website in a given territory, coupled with its
accessibility to customers therein, may suffice.
18. The Plaintiff has averred in the Plaint that Defendant No. 1’s alleged
infringing products are listed, advertised, and promoted on Justdial, which is
accessible to traders, customers, and the public at large throughout India,
including Delhi. It is further averred that, through the said listing, Defendant
No. 1 may be contacted, and orders may be placed by customers in Delhi.
19. These averments are required to be accepted as true for the purpose of
deciding the present Application on the demurrer principle. Applying the
decisions of this Court in Sun Pharmaceutical (supra) and Ravinder Singh
(supra) to the facts of the present case, Defendant No. 1’s listing on Justdial,
CS(COMM) 294/2024 Page 12 of 15
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:15.06.2026
19:14:30

through which the alleged infringing products are advertised and can be
explored by customers in Delhi, who may also access the product catalogue
and contact Defendant No. 1 for placing orders, prima facie gives rise to part
of the cause of action in Delhi. This functionality of the listing on Justdial
may reasonably be construed as facilitating commercial transactions.
20. Although Defendant No. 1 has contended that there is no material on
record evidencing any actual commercial transaction in Delhi in respect of
the alleged infringing products, Defendant No. 1’s listing on Justdial and
accessibility of the same to the customers in Delhi would be sufficient to
confer jurisdiction to this Court at this stage.
21. In addition, the Plaintiff has averred that it has a subordinate office in
Delhi, which is also borne out by the address stated in the Memorandum of
Parties in the Plaint. Therefore, a part of the cause of action arises in Delhi
and this Court would have territorial jurisdiction in accordance with Section
134 of the Act read with Section 20 of the CPC as the Plaintiff also
maintains a subordinate office within the jurisdiction of this Court.
22. In this context, it is apposite to refer to the decision of this Court in
Astral Ltd. v. Ajay Enterprises , 2025 SCC OnLine Del 10065, wherein it
has been held that under Section 134 of the Act read with Section 20 of the
CPC, where the cause of action arises in part at both the places where the
plaintiff’s principal office and subordinate office are situated, the Courts at
both places would have jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The said forums are
not mutually exclusive for the purposes of institution of the suit, as the
plaintiff is deemed to carry on business at both such places. The relevant
portion of the said decision is reproduced below:
CS(COMM) 294/2024 Page 13 of 15
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:15.06.2026
19:14:30

“ 27. Where the cause of action arises in part at both the places
where the principal and subordinate offices are located, Section 20
provides that the Court at both places would have jurisdiction as
even the place where subordinate office is located shall be treated as
place where the plaintiff carries on business to confer the
jurisdiction to the Court at that place. Accordingly, the plaintiff will
have two places of carrying on business; (i) where the principal
office is located; and (ii) where the cause of action and subordinate
office both are at the same place.
28. Both these places are not mutually exclusive for the purpose of
the institution of a Suit and the Courts at both places shall have
jurisdiction. The Court at the place where the principal office is
located would not exclude the jurisdiction of the place where the
subordinate office is located, if the cause of action has arisen at
both the places. On the contrary, the Explanation to Section 20 is an
enabling provision specifically with respect to when cause of action
arises at a place where a corporation's subordinate office is located.
In that case, the plaintiff is entitled to institute a suit at the said
place as well. ”
23. However, Defendant No. 1 has contended that, since the principal place
of business of both Defendant No. 1 and the Plaintiff is Ahmedabad, this Court
lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present Suit and that the Plaintiff
has not specifically pleaded jurisdiction under Section 134 of the Act.
24. Both the above objections of Defendant No. 1 cannot be accepted as:
firstly , it is not disputed by Defendant No. 1 that the Plaintiff does not have a
subordinate office within the jurisdiction of this Court and, therefore, as per
Astral (supra), this Court would have jurisdiction and secondly , it is well
settled that the mere non-mention of a statutory provision does not, by itself,
divest a Court of jurisdiction, if such jurisdiction otherwise exists in law.
25. Accordingly, in view of the fact that a part of the cause of action has
arisen in Delhi, inasmuch as Defendant No. 1’s listing on Justdial, through
CS(COMM) 294/2024 Page 14 of 15
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:15.06.2026
19:14:30

which the alleged infringing products are advertised and are accessible to the
customers in Delhi, and further having regard to the fact that the Plaintiff
maintains a subordinate office in Delhi, this Court prima facie has the
territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the present Suit.
26. In view of the foregoing analysis, the present Application is liable to
be dismissed. However, the rights and contentions of the Defendant No. 1
with respect to the issue of territorial jurisdiction are kept open to be urged
at the appropriate stage in the Suit, and the same shall be adjudicated on
their own merits. Subject to the aforesaid observations, the present
Application stands dismissed.
CS(COMM) 294/2024, I.A. 7865/2024 & I.A. 29673/2025
27. List on 19.08.2026.
TEJAS KARIA, J
JUNE 15, 2026
St
CS(COMM) 294/2024 Page 15 of 15
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:15.06.2026
19:14:30