Impugned hoardings and a declared Delhi place of business establish territorial jurisdiction under Section 20 CPC.

Hindustan Unilever Limited (“Appellant”) filed a commercial suit before the Delhi High Court seeking interim relief under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”), alleging that Kwick Living (I) Private Limited (“Respondent”)’s advertising campaign caused substantial damage to the goodwill of the Appellant’s product.

The learned Single Judge declined to adjudicate the interim application on merits because the territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi courts was in doubt and referred questions concerning territorial jurisdiction to a Larger Bench.

In appeal, the Appellant relied on physical hoardings carrying the impugned advertisement that had been erected in Delhi before institution of the suit.

The Respondent objected that the plaint did not establish a cause of action in Delhi, did not contain bills or invoices evidencing sales in Delhi, and disclosed that both parties had their registered offices in Mumbai; it relied on Indian Performing Rights Society Limited v. Sanjay Dalia .

During the appeal, the Respondent admitted that it held a GST registration in Delhi, had declared its principal place of business at Naraina Industrial Area, had erected the impugned hoardings in Delhi on 14 August 2026, and sold its products in Delhi.

The Court applied Section 20(a) CPC, under which a suit may be instituted where the defendant carries on business, and Section 20(c) CPC, under which jurisdiction lies where the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.

The Court considered the Respondent’s reliance on Indian Performing Rights Society Limited v. Sanjay Dalia , (2015) 10 SCC 161, concerning territorial jurisdiction in intellectual-property disputes where the relevant statutory provisions and Section 20 CPC may overlap.

It also relied on Shyam Sel and Power Limited v. Shyam Steel Industries Limited , (2023) 1 SCC 634, for the principle that an appellate court may remit an interlocutory injunction application to the court of first instance where the Single Judge has not adjudicated the merits.

The Court further proceeded on the principle that jurisdiction must ordinarily be supported by the pleadings, permitting the Appellant to amend the plaint to formally incorporate the admitted jurisdictional facts.

The Court held that the Respondent’s admissions conclusively established both jurisdictional bases under Section 20 CPC.

The erection of the impugned hoardings in Delhi before institution of the suit meant that a material part of the cause of action arose in Delhi, satisfying Section 20(c).

The Respondent’s GST registration and declaration of a principal place of business at Naraina Industrial Area demonstrated that it carried on business in Delhi, satisfying Section 20(a).

Accordingly, the Respondent’s objection that the suit could only be instituted in Mumbai was rejected.

However, since the learned Single Judge had not considered the interim application on merits and was the court of first instance, the Division Bench declined to determine the rival claims for interim relief and directed the Single Judge to hear and decide the application expeditiously.

To align the pleadings with the established jurisdictional facts, the Court permitted a limited amendment of the plaint, without requiring a formal amendment application.

The Respondent was barred from re-agitating territorial jurisdiction before the learned Single Judge.

The Appellant was directed to amend the plaint only to incorporate the facts concerning the Delhi hoardings and the Respondent’s Delhi place of business, as paragraphs 152(A) and 157(A).

The suit was directed to be listed before the learned Single Judge on 3 September 2026 for adjudication of the interim injunction application on merits; the Division Bench expressly declined to decide the merits itself and did not express any opinion on the Larger Bench reference.

The appeal and pending application were disposed of.