If the cause of action arises in part within the specified areas in Oudh it would be open to the litigant who is the dominus litis to have his forum conveniens. The Parliament while enacting the Trade Marks Act, 1999 provided for such an additional forum by enacting sub-section (2) of Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act. For the purpose of attracting the jurisdiction of a court in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 62 of the 1957 Act, the conditions precedent specified therein must be fulfilled, the requisites wherefor are that the plaintiff must actually and voluntarily reside to carry on business or personally work for gain.
A cause of action in a given case both under the 1957 Act as also under the 1958 Act may be overlapping to some extent. The litigant has the right to go to a Court where part of his cause of action arises. If regard be had to this provision it is abundantly clear that the intention of the Legislature was to assimilate the Wage Board thus constituted as much as possible to an Industrial Tribunal constituted: under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and it was contemplated that the Board may for fixing rates.
of wages, exercise the same powers and follow the same procedure. The advocates Supreme Court of India shall not, it is well well-settled, readily presume the existence of jurisdiction of a court which was not conferred by the statute. It is unsound because the expression “cause of action” in an application under Article 226 would be as the expression is understood and if the cause of action arose because of the appellate order or the revisional order which came to be passed at Lucknow then Lucknow would have jurisdiction though the original order was passed at a place outside the areas in Oudh.
In such cases, it is incorrect to say that the litigant chooses any particular Court. It still did not choose to make a similar provision therein. The Parliament while enacting the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act in the year 1958 was aware of the provisions of the 1957 Act. (2) If in the course of an inquiry into a dispute under sub-section (1), the Sub-Divisional Officer is unable to satisfy himself as to which party is in possession or if it is shown that possession has been obtained by wrongful dispossession of the lawful occupant, within a period of three months preceding the commencement of the inquiry, the Sub-Divisional Officer shall- (a) in the first case, ascertain by summary inquiry who is the person best entitled to the property, and shall put such person in possession.
Sub-section (2) of Section 62 of the 1957 Act provides for an additional forum. The expression “cause of action” is well- known. The conclusion as well as the reasoning of the High Court is incorrect. The territorial jurisdiction conferred upon the lawyers Supreme Court of India in terms of the provisions of the Code of civil Procedure indisputably shall apply to a suit or proceeding under the 1957 Act as also the 1958 Act. The intention of the Parliament in not providing for an additional forum in relation to the violation of the 1958 Act is, therefore, clear and explicit.
The choice is by reason of the jurisdiction of the Court being attracted by part of cause of action arising within the jurisdiction of the Court. If the cause of action arises wholly within the specified Oudh areas, it is indisputable that the Lucknow Bench would have exclusive jurisdiction in such a matter. 11 which talks of the powers and procedure of the Board and there also, subject to any rules of procedure which may be prescribed by the Central Government, the Board is empowered to exercise the same powers and follow the same procedure as an Industrial Tribunal constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act.
It may be that the original order was in favour of the person applying for a writ. In such case an adverse appellate order might be the cause of action. If the cause of action arises wholly or in part at a place within the specified Oudh areas, the Lucknow Bench will have jurisdiction. It was next argued by learned counsel for the appellants that with the acquittal of 6 out of 10 accused persons, the charge that the appellants constituted an unlawful assembly ought to fail and as an inevitable consequence thereof, the conviction of the appellants for murder with the help of Section 149 of the IPC rendered unsustainable.
Such additional forum was provided so as to enable the author to file a suit who may not otherwise be in a position to file a suit at different places where his copyright was violated. The Court will find out in each case whether the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of India advocates is rightly attracted by the alleged cause of action. Such an omission may be held to be a conscious action on the part of the Parliament. The decision of the Board was to be binding on all the employers, though the working journalists were at liberty to further agitate the, question under the Industrial Disputes Act if they were not satisfied with the deciSion of the Wage Board and wanted a further increase in their rates of wages, thus determined.
Similarly, if the cause of action can be said to have arisen partly within specified areas in Oudh and partly outside the specified Oudh areas, the litigant will have the choice to institute proceedings either at Allahabad or Lucknow. It was contended that acquittal of other accused persons alleged to be members of the unlawful assembly, implied that the said accused had been falsely implicated in the case or that they, even if physically present on the spot as alleged, did not share the common object of the convicted accused.