The Himachal Pradesh High Court has refused interim injunction relief to SML Limited in a patent infringement dispute, holding that four isolated sales invoices, without evidence that the manufacturer supplied the allegedly infringing product to the retailer in Himachal Pradesh, were insufficient to establish territorial jurisdiction.
Justice Sandeep Sharma observed that the court must first be satisfied about its territorial jurisdiction before considering an application for interim injunction.
Background
SML Limited approached the High Court alleging that Mohan & Company and another respondent were dealing in a product named “ZeekaSulf”, which allegedly infringed its Indian Patent No. 282092, granted for an agricultural composition.
The company claimed that the respondents were manufacturing, marketing and selling the product in violation of its exclusive patent rights. It relied on four invoices showing purchases from a retailer in Tehsil Theog, Himachal Pradesh.
The respondents disputed the court's jurisdiction, arguing that the manufacturer had neither supplied the product to the retailer nor authorised its sale in the state.
The Court examined the invoices, the parties' submissions and the requirements under the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985. It noted that a retailer dealing in fertilisers must have the prescribed authorisation and certificate of source.
The Court observed:
"The mere production of invoices, as detailed hereinabove, would not be sufficient to conclude territorial jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the instant application."
It further found no material establishing that the manufacturer had supplied the disputed product to the retailer in Himachal Pradesh.
On the product's online listing, the Court clarified that mere availability of a website does not establish territorial jurisdiction without evidence of an actual commercial transaction within the state.
For accuracy, the Court's exact observation on the invoices was:
"No doubt, it can be determined during trial whether invoices qua the sale of infringing product were actually issued by defendant No. 1 or not, however, even if it is assumed that the invoices were issued by defendant No. 1, mere production thereof would not, by itself, be sufficient to confer territorial jurisdiction upon this Court until it is established that the impugned products were supplied by Defendant no. 2 to Defendant no. 1 for sale in the territory of Himachal Pradesh."
The Court also observed:
"Documents adduced on record by the plaintiff suggest that infringing product is listed on the website of defendant No. 2, but there is nothing on record to prove that afore product has been or is being sold by defendant No. 2 in the State of Himachal Pradesh."
The High Court held that SML Limited had failed to establish a prima facie case of territorial jurisdiction. It therefore dismissed the application seeking interim injunction without examining the other aspects of the alleged patent infringement.
The Court clarified that its observations were confined to the interim injunction application and would not affect the merits of the main suit.
Case Details
Case Title: SML Limited v. Mohan & Company and Another
Case Number: OMP No. 324 of 2023 in COMS No. 7 of 2023
Judge: Justice Sandeep Sharma
Decision Date: 15 October 2026
