Judgment :- Lakshmanan, J. This original petition was filed by the petitioner under Sections 46, 56 read with Sections 107, 108 and 111 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 for rectification of the Register of Trade Marks by expunction of the entries in the Register of Trade Marks and cancellation of the Trade Marks relating to the impugned registered Trade Mark No. 334228-B in Class 14. 2. The petitioner who is a gold merchant is trading under the name and style of "Thettayil Jewellery" having his principal place of business at Angamaly, Kerala. The first respondent is also a gold merchant trading under the name and style of "Thettayil Jewellery" having his principal place of business at Alwaye, Kerala. According to the petitioner the Madras office of the Trade Marks Registry is entered in the Register as the appropriate office in relation to the impugned mark and that he filed an application for rectification of the register in respect of the impugned mark registered in the name of the first respondent and that when the case came up for hearing before the point Registrar of Trade Marks on 7th July, 1988 he took up only the issue as to whether or not he had jurisdiction to entertain the application and decided that under Section 107 of the Act the validity of the registration of the impugned mark is determined only on an application for rectification of the Register being made to the High Court and not to the Registrar. Accordingly the petitioner has filed the present original petition before this Court. 3. Since I am now called upon to decide the question of jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the present original petition I am not going into the merits of rival claims. 4. The first respondent has filled His counter statement. According to the first respondent this Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the case and that the High Courts at Bombay or Kerala only have jurisdiction. According to the first respondent the Trade Mark in question was granted by the Trade Mark Registry in Bombay. Therefore the appropriate office is the Bombay Office and not the Madras Office and hence only the High Court of judicature at Bombay has jurisdiction under the Act to entertain this portion. According to the first respondent the Trade Mark in question was granted by the Trade Mark Registry in Bombay. Therefore the appropriate office is the Bombay Office and not the Madras Office and hence only the High Court of judicature at Bombay has jurisdiction under the Act to entertain this portion. According to the first respondent the registration for the Trade Mark was granted by the Registrar of Trade Marks, Bombay and that the same was also renewed for a period of seven years from 7.3.1985 on the basis of the renewal application filed by the first respondent. In the light of the above, the first respondent submits that the High Court having jurisdiction over the subject matter of the present petition is High Court of judicature at Bombay and not this Court. Moreover the present petition directed against the original registration has become infructuous and on this ground alone this original petition is liable to be dismissed by this Court. 5. It appears to me that this Court alone has jurisdiction under the scheme of the Act for the reasons stated infra. Under Section 5 of the Act the Central Government is empowered to establish a head office of the Trade Marks Registry together with branch offices by issuing a notification in this behalf. By notification Section offices 2601 the Central Government established the head office of the Trade Mark Registry at Bombay with Branch Offices at Calcutta, Delhi and Madras. It also defined the territorial limits within which each of the offices of the Trade Marks Registry aforesaid shall exercise its functions. Even the Head Office at Bombay has its own territorial limits. The territorial limit of Bombay have been defined within which the office of the Trade Mark Registry at Bombay shall exercise its function viz., in the areas of the States of Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra and Union Territories of Dadra and Nagar, Haveli, Goa, Daman and Diu. The territorial limits of the Madras Trade Marks Registry situated at Madras are the State of Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Karnataka Union Territories of Laccadive, Minicoy and Amindivi Islands and Pondicherry. 6. Rule 2(h) of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Rules, 1959 defines "Principal place of business in India". An application for registration is made under Section 18 of the Act which prescribes the procedure for and duration of registration. 6. Rule 2(h) of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Rules, 1959 defines "Principal place of business in India". An application for registration is made under Section 18 of the Act which prescribes the procedure for and duration of registration. Thus in the instant case the first respondent's principal place of business is Angamaly Kerala. The application for registration of the impugned registered trade mark No. 334228-B could therefore have been filed only in the Madras Registry, because Kerala comes within the territorial jurisdiction of the Madras Registry. As a matter fact, the first respondent has property filed his application for registration only in the Madras Registry on the 8th March, 1978 as evidenced by his application for registration in the official register filed summoned by this court. 7. Under Section 56 and other sections viz., Sections 46 and 47 sub-clause (4) there is a concurrent jurisdiction with the Registrar as well as the High Court to entertain applications/petitions for rectification the word 'Tribunal' used for instance in Section 56 has been defined in Section 2(1)(x) as the Registrar of the High Court as the case may be. The jurisdiction of the Registrar of is however taken away in certain circumstances narrated in Section 107(1) of the Act, whereunder the High Court alone has the jurisdiction. In short one may always go to the High Court for rectifying a registration provided that it is a High Court having jurisdiction within the meaning of Section 3 of the Act. 8. Section 3 of the Act read with Section 2(1)(h) determines the High Court having jurisdiction under this Act, which means jurisdiction for all purposes (including jurisdiction for entertaining rectification proceedings) under the Act. In order to determine which High Court has jurisdiction relevant to the present case Section 3 have got to be considered. Section 3(a) of the Act deals with a case of register of trade marks at the commencement of the Act viz., 25th November, 1959, Section 3(a) of the Act is not applicable because the impugned mark was not on the register of trade marks at the commencement of the Act. As a matter of fact the impugned application was filed much later viz., on 8th March, 1978. As a matter of fact the impugned application was filed much later viz., on 8th March, 1978. Likewise Sections 3(c)(d) and (e) of the Act are not applicable since those relate to joint proprietors/joint applicants, unlike the present case and Section 3(e) of the Act relates to a case where there is no place of business in India unlike the present case. Section 3(b) of the Act is the only provision which is applicable to the present case. Under this provision the following essential requisites must be satisfied :x x x x x 9. Once the Office of the registry is determined under Section 3(b) of the Act as the Madras registry as discussed above, the High Court having jurisdiction is determined by the opening sentence of Section 3 as that High Court within the limits of whose appellate jurisdiction the Madras Registry is situate. This can only mean the Madras High Court. To summarise an application/petition for rectification can always be filed in a High Court under Sections 46, 47(4), 56 and 107 of the Act. However, it is not in any High Court that such application/petition for rectification can be filed but only in the High Court having jurisdiction under Section 2(1)(h) and Section 3 of the Act. So far as the instant case is concerned the High Court in my opinion having jurisdiction can be determined only by reference under Section 3(b) read with opening sentence of Section 3. Thus the parameters necessary to determine the High Court having jurisdiction under Section 3(b) read with the opening sentence 3 are : 1. Firstly the application for registration of the impugned mark 334228 B must have been pending at the commencement of the Act, or made or after the commencement of the Act (the application was made on the 8th March, 1978 after the commencement of the Act on the 25th November, 1959) 2. Secondly the principal place of business in India of the applicant as disclosed in the application for registration must be ascertained which is disclosed in the application for registration as Angamaly Kerala) 3. Thirdly the office of the Registry which in whose territorial limits such principal place of business is situate must be ascertained (this is the Madras Office of the Registry which has territorial jurisdiction over Kerala) and 4. Thirdly the office of the Registry which in whose territorial limits such principal place of business is situate must be ascertained (this is the Madras Office of the Registry which has territorial jurisdiction over Kerala) and 4. Lastly under the opening sentence of Section 3 the High Court within the limits of whose appellate jurisdiction the Madras Registry is situate is to be determined (Madras High Court). 10. Accordingly as rightly submitted by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner the present original petition for rectification of the Register in respect of the Trade Mark No. 334228-B has been property instituted in the Madras High Court having jurisdiction under the Act so far as the said petitioner is concerned. It is useful to refer paragraph 846 of Narayanan's Trade Marks with reference to the jurisdiction of High Court. 11. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the first respondent submits that it was after compliance with the completion of the requisite formalities prescribed by law and also after due and detailed enquiry by the Trade Mark Authority the registration for the Trade Mark was granted by the Registrar of Trade Marks, Bombay and that the same was also renewed for a period of seven years from 7.3.1985 and that it was done in strict accordance with law and on the basis of the renewal application filed by the first respondent. In the light of the above he further submits that the High Court having jurisdiction over the subject matter of the present petition is the High Court of judicature at Bombay and not this court. Mr. Parameswaran also invited my attention to certain letters and telegrams from the file. 12. Thus according to the learned counsel consistently the matter has been approached with Bombay Office only and that the Madras Office has no role to play in so far as it relates to the registration of the trade mark. I am unable to accept the said contention of the learned counsel for the first respondent. Merely because some ministerial act of issue of certificate by the Bombay Office cannot clothe with the authority or confer the jurisdiction on the Bombay Registry. The ministerial act of issue of certificate by Bombay is not the sole criteria. I am unable to accept the said contention of the learned counsel for the first respondent. Merely because some ministerial act of issue of certificate by the Bombay Office cannot clothe with the authority or confer the jurisdiction on the Bombay Registry. The ministerial act of issue of certificate by Bombay is not the sole criteria. In fact the first respondent has made his application only to the Registrar of Trade Marks, Office of the Trade Marks Registry, Madras under his application dated 8.3.1978 for registration of trade mark in (Form No. TM-1.46, 47(4) or 56, Rule 94, TM 33 which a request to enter change of name or description of registered proprietor (or registered user) of trade mark upon the register under Section 57 (Rules 93 and 99) Form TM 34 which is a request for alteration of the address of the principal place of business or of residence in India or of the address in the home country abroad in the Register of Trade Marks, Section 57 Rules 93, 98 and 99 the applicants were directed to state the name of the place of the appropriate office of the Trade Marks Registry. 13. In fact a communication sent from the Trade Mark Registry at Bombay under Reference No. U-8 3836 of 18th July, 1978 dated 18-7-1978 the Advocate for the first respondent was directed to send his further correspondence and remittance in this respect only to the office of the Trade Marks Registry at Madras. Accordingly the Advocate for the first respondent addressed a letter dated 21.7.1978 to the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks, Trade Marks Registry, Madras-6 with reference to the letter Ref. U-8/3836 of 18th July, 1978 from the Registrar of Trade Marks, Bombay submitted certain particulars. 14. It is seen from the letter dated 21.7.1978 that pursuant to the directions given by the Registrar or Trade Marks, Bombay further details were given and furnished to the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks Madras-6 and the applicant's address is given as Thettayil House, Angamali, P. Ward No. III, Kerala State. A crossed postal order for Rs. 10/- was also submitted to the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks, Madras towards the prescribed advertisement fee. A copy of the said letter was forwarded to the Registrar of Trade Marks, Bombay for information. A crossed postal order for Rs. 10/- was also submitted to the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks, Madras towards the prescribed advertisement fee. A copy of the said letter was forwarded to the Registrar of Trade Marks, Bombay for information. It is also seen from the file that Form TM-11 was also sent the Registrar of Trade Marks, Madras. It is very useful to refer one letter dated 24th January, 1979 from the file produced in this court. The Advocate for the first respondent sent a communication to the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks, Madras-6, requestion him to kindly issue him the Trade Mark Certificate immediately after the waiting period is finished. It is stated in the said letter that the Trade Marks of his business under the tittle of "Thettayil Jewellery" has already been published in the trade Test journal No. 706 dated 1.11.1978 Vol. XXXV by the Bombay Office and the form No. TM 11 duly filed and signed together with a crossed Indian Postal Order for Rs. 90/- to the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks for further action was enclosed. 15. Thus as stated above the appropriate office for making application for registration of trade mark for rectification or for any other proceedings under the Act or the Rules is determined only by the location of the principal place of business of the applicant for registration or of the registered proprietor under Rule 4. In the instant case the first respondent has mentioned his principal place of business as Angamali Kerala State. The appropriate office thus has to be determined by the location of the address for service in India and all proceedings must be taken before the office within whose territorial jurisdiction the principal place of the applicant for registration as the case may be is situated. 16. The appropriate office thus has to be determined by the location of the address for service in India and all proceedings must be taken before the office within whose territorial jurisdiction the principal place of the applicant for registration as the case may be is situated. 16. As stated supra the application for registration was made in the office of the Trade Marks Registry within whose territorial limits the principal place of the applicant is situate viz., at Angamali, Kerala State because the area Angamali, Kerala comes within the territorial jurisdiction of the Madras Registry, considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the records placed by the second respondent before this court and the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for both parties I am of the view that this court alone has jurisdiction to entertain and deal with the application filed under Sections 45, 56 read with Sections 107, 108 and 111 of the Act. 17. In the result preliminary objection raised by the first respondent in regard to the jurisdiction of this court is over ruled. The matter may be listed for final hearing and disposed of in accordance with the merits and the law on the subject. The entrain order on the question of jurisdiction is passed on the above terms.