In ABD Maestro Private Limited v. Great Galleon Ventures Ltd. (CS(COMM) 987/2026, the lead matter in a batch of seventeen commercial suits, pronounced 3 November 2026), Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav of the High Court of Delhi confronted a pattern that has quietly reshaped commercial litigation: intellectual property suits filed in Delhi between parties who have nothing to do with Delhi, on the plea that the defendant’s website can be opened here or that goods were once ordered online for delivery to a Delhi address. In more than half of the batched suits, neither party was located in Delhi. The court returned the plaints, holding that accessibility is not availment and that a plaintiff cannot manufacture a connection with a court of its choosing.
Seventeen suits, one question
The batch — trademark infringement, copyright, trade dress and passing off claims by companies ranging from liquor and FMCG manufacturers to restaurants and ceramics brands — shared a single jurisdictional foundation. Each plaintiff said Delhi had territorial jurisdiction because the defendant’s website or online marketplace listing was accessible in Delhi, because transactions could in theory be concluded on it, or because an order had in fact been placed for delivery at a Delhi address. In the lead suit, a Mumbai-based beverages company alleged that a Madhya Pradesh distiller’s vodka infringed its mark and trade dress; the Delhi connection rested on website accessibility, an asserted commercial presence and a GST registration reflecting a Delhi address — while the defendant’s own product material indicated sale only in Madhya Pradesh.
The court was blunt about what was at stake. A suit with no material connection to Delhi should not be entertained here: institutional discipline, the court said, requires it to refrain. If accessibility were enough, every seller with a webpage would be suable everywhere, and territorial jurisdiction — the rule that keeps litigation near the dispute and the defendant — would mean nothing.
The legal architecture the judgment reaffirms
“Carries on business”
Under the settled Supreme Court test, carrying on business at a place requires an interest in the business there, a voice in its conduct, a share in its gains or losses, and control — not the mere fact that goods are sold or deliverable there, including through a “virtual store”.
Composite suits
Where infringement and passing off are combined, jurisdiction must be made out for each relief separately. The special venue provisions of the Trade Marks Act and Copyright Act do not carry the passing off claim with them.
Targeting, not access
For website-based jurisdiction, the operative question is whether the defendant purposefully targeted customers within the forum and concluded genuine commercial transactions there — the standard long associated with the Division Bench’s trap-transaction jurisprudence.
Statutory venue discipline
Where a corporation has a principal office and sub-offices, a sub-office counts only if the cause of action arises there. The convenience-driven expansion of forum choice through online listings was expressly rejected.
The earlier “virtual shop” reasoning confined
The most consequential doctrinal move is the court’s treatment of the 2014 Division Bench view that an interactive website amounts to a shop wherever the buyer sits. After tracing the Supreme Court’s subsequent decisions on the special venue provisions and the principal-office framework, the single judge concluded that the earlier reasoning departs from the Supreme Court’s test and no longer governs the issue — it stands confined to its own facts. The court also noted that a related jurisdictional question is pending before a larger bench, but proceeded to decide, observing that a pending reference does not stay other proceedings and that there cannot be a vacuum in the law.
The plaintiffs’ theory
Website opens in Delhi; orders can be placed from Delhi; our representative received delivery in Delhi; the GST portal shows a Delhi address — therefore Delhi courts have jurisdiction.
The court’s answer
Accessibility proves nothing about where business is carried on; an arranged purchase cannot manufacture a connection; a tax registration is not the CPC test; and the plaintiff has no inherent right to a forum of its preference.
The outcome and its mechanics
Finding territorial jurisdiction not established, the court returned the plaints under Order VII Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC, leaving the plaintiffs to the procedure under Order VII Rule 10A, and disposed of the pending applications. Return is not rejection: the claims remain alive and can be presented before the courts within whose jurisdiction the defendants reside or the causes of action genuinely arose. What the plaintiffs lose is the chosen forum — and with it, often, the practical pressure that litigating in a distant city places on a smaller defendant, a dynamic the judgment expressly flagged when it warned that expansive online-accessibility jurisdiction invites harassment and forum shopping.
What this means for commercial plaintiffs and defendants
- Plead jurisdiction as fact, not formula. Recitals that the defendant’s website is “accessible in Delhi” will attract Order VII Rule 10 scrutiny. Plead concrete, defendant-initiated commercial activity within the forum.
- Audit trap purchases. If a test purchase is the backbone of jurisdiction, be prepared to show that it reflects the defendant’s real course of trade into the forum rather than an engineered transaction.
- Defendants should raise the objection early. A return of plaint application, taken at the threshold, can relocate the entire litigation before costs mount — and in commercial suits the timelines make early objections doubly valuable.
- Watch the larger bench. With a reference pending on the wider question, parties structuring e-commerce operations should track how the targeting standard is finally settled.
Practice note: For businesses selling online across India, this judgment is a planning document. Where you can be sued is now tied to where you purposefully direct trade — pricing pages, delivery coverage, dealer networks and marketplace settings are jurisdictional evidence. Keep records that show which states you actually serve, and review forum-selection and dispute-resolution clauses in distribution contracts so that the forum question is answered by drafting rather than by litigation.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I sue in Delhi just because the defendant's website opens in Delhi?
No. The judgment holds that mere accessibility of a website — even an interactive one — does not amount to the defendant carrying on business in Delhi. What is needed is purposeful targeting of customers within the forum and genuine commercial transactions concluded there, examined against the settled tests for “carries on business” under Section 20 CPC and the special venue provisions of the trade mark and copyright statutes.
What happened to the suits — were they dismissed?
They were not dismissed on merits. The plaints were returned under Order VII Rule 10 CPC for presentation before courts that actually have territorial jurisdiction, with the procedural route under Order VII Rule 10A available to the plaintiffs. A returned plaint can be re-presented in the competent court, so the claims survive; only the chosen forum falls.
Does a GST registration showing a Delhi address create jurisdiction?
Not by itself. A “principal place of business” declared for GST purposes serves tax law; it does not automatically establish that the company carries on business in Delhi for the purposes of the Code of Civil Procedure. The jurisdictional inquiry remains whether the business tests — interest, control, and a share in gains or losses at that place — are actually met.
What about a purchase my own representative placed from Delhi?
The court viewed strategically arranged purchases with suspicion: a party cannot create jurisdiction through a transaction engineered for that purpose. An online order that could have been placed from almost anywhere does not show that the defendant targeted the forum. Plaintiffs relying on trap transactions must meet the established standards for showing purposeful availment, not merely a delivery receipt.