JUDGMENT B. Akbar Basha Khadiri, J. - This application has arisen in this way : 2. The sole proprietrix of Priya Housewares (India) Ltd. Bangalore for rectification of the register of trade mark and for removal of the trade mark from the register for non-user of the trade mark. According to the petitioner, the registered trade mark No. 141602 being the word mark, namely, Prestige, was originally registered in class 21 in the name of Plaster and Stampers Limited, Colne Road, Burnley, Lancashire, England during 1949. The name of the registered proprietor was subsequently altered to the Prestige Group Limited, Prestige House, Holborn, London, E.C.I., England on 12-01-1957. Then, on 13-10-1989, the trade mark was registered in the name of the Presdige Housewares (India) Limited, Bangalore with effect from 14-10-1985. But the respondent, the Prestige Housewares (India) Limited had not been using the trade mark more than past five years and one month. 3. The petitioner is the manufacture of rubber gaskets which are fixed to pressure cooker lids. He is manufacturing gaskets suitable for pressure cookers sold with the brand name Prestige, Killicks, Videocon, Usha, etc. For the purpose of identi-fying that his product is meant to be used as a gasket for particular type of pressure cooker, in the back of his rubber gasket, the petitioner is using the brand name. 4. The respondent issued a cease and desist notice to the petitioner calling upon him to cease and desist from using word "Prestige". Because of the existence of the registration of the impugned trade mark in favour of the respondent, the petitioner apprehends that it may not be possible to do his business lawfully. Therefore, the petitioner has come forward with the main petition for removal of the trade mark of the respondent from the register. 5. The respondent in the main petition has field the instant application, namely, Application No. 3670 of 1997, contending that the respondent/trade mark was registered with the Registrar of Trade Mark at Calcutta and may rectification proceedings is sought to be instituted that should be done only at Calcutta and this Court has no juris-diction and therefore, the main O.P. should be dismissed. 6. The respondent herein had not field counter, but contested the matter. 7. The point for consideration is whether this Court has jurisdiction to enter-tain the main petition ? 8. 6. The respondent herein had not field counter, but contested the matter. 7. The point for consideration is whether this Court has jurisdiction to enter-tain the main petition ? 8. The learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that rectification proceedings can be instituted only in the High Court, within whose jurisdiction the trade mark is registered and the registry is situate. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the present registered office of the respondent is in Bangalore and the territory of Bangalore comes within the jurisdiction of Registrar of Trade Mark at Madras and, therefore, this Court has jurisdiction. According to the Counsel for the petitioner, the respondent is a foreign company who had no place of business in India at the time when the trade mark was registered or even at the time when the Trade Mark Act 1949 and the Trade Mark Act 1958 came into force and therefore, Provision of 3(c) of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 would apply. The trade mark was registered at Calcutta Office of the Registrar of Trade Marks No. 141602 in clause 21. I have carefully gone through the provision of sections 3, 5, 46, 56, 108 and 111 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act. Prior to 1959, there was only one Trade Mark Registrar's office at Calcutta for the whole of India. But, by notification dated 25-11-1959, the whole India has been divided into four regions, namely, Bombay, Calcutta, Delhi and Madras, and the Registrar of Trade Mark at Madras has jurisdiction over the State of Andhra Pradesh, Kerala, Mysore, and Tamil Nadu. Mysore has now become Karnataka State. The jurisdiction of the High Court is determined by Section 3 of the Act. An application for rectification of the register can be entertained only by the Court depending upon where the trade mark in question was registered. Section 3 of the Trade Mark and Merchandise Marks Act reads as under : "3. HIGH COURT HAVING JURISDICTION : The High Court having jurisdiction under this Act shall be the High Court within the limits of whose appellate jurisdiction the office of the Trade Marks Registry within whose territorial limits the principle place of business in India of the proprietor of the trade mark is entered in the register at such commencement is situate : (b) ... ... ... ... (c) ... ... ... ... (d) ... ... ... ... ... (c) ... ... ... ... (d) ... ... ... ... (e) Where the registered proprietor or the applicant for registration as aforesaid had no, place of business in India or where none of the jointly registered proprietors or none of the joint applicants as aforesaid has any place of business in India, the office of the Trade Marks Registry within whose territorial limits - (i) In relation to a trade mark on the Register of Trade Marks at the commencement of this Act, the place mentioned in the address for service in India as entered in the register at such commencement. (ii) in relation to a trade mark for which an application for registration is pending at or is made on or after such commencement, the place men-tioned in the address for service in India as specified in the application, is situate". 9. According to the petitioner, the respondent was originally an English Company who had no place of business in India at the time of registration of the trade mark, at the time when the earlier Trade Mark Act, 1940 came into force and also at the time when the new Tread and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 came into force and therefore, the Provision of section 3(e) would apply, according to which the place where the respondent is residing, i.e. Bangalore, which comes within the jurisdiction of the Trade Marks Registry of Madras and therefore, this Court has jurisdiction. According to the respondent, though the respondent had no principal place of business in India, in the Registry of Trade Marks, the address for service in India has been mentioned as c/o. Remfry & Son, Stephen House, Dalhouise Square, Calcutta. Therefore, applying the Provision of Section 3(e)(i) of the Act, only the High Court at Calcutta has jurisdiction to entertain the application. 10. The learned Counsel cited three authorities in support to his arguments. In Chunualal v. Muthiah & Bros. (AIR 1959 Madras 359), it has been held that the office of the Regis-trar of Trade Marks is situated in Bombay, that the Register of Trade Market kept at Bombay, and the rectification is made in that register, that must, therefore, be held that the High Court having jurisdiction in the matter is the High Court Bombay and High Court Madras. Though the decision cited supra is given under Section 76(1) of the Act, it squarely applies to the facts of the instant case. In Vikas Manufacturing Co. v. Bharaj Manufacturing Co. (Regd.) (1980(1) I.P.L.R. 16), the application was field in Punjab and Haryana High Court for rectification of the register, and the respondent took a preliminary objection that court had no jurisdiction. The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that Section 3 read with Section 5 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act show that Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the application for rectification. In a recent case decided by my learned brother Ramaswamy, J., in O.P. No. 803 of 1994 and Appln. No. 2495 of 1995 in C.S. No. 5 of 1994, it has been held that the application under Section 56 of the Act can be entertained only in the High Court referred in Section 3 of the Act. The trade mark having been registered at Bombay, only Bombay High Court will have jurisdiction. 11. On a careful consideration of the matter placed before me, I am satisfied that the main petition for rectification ought to have been instituted in Calcutta High Court. In that view of the matter, this application, A. No. 3670 of 1997, is allowed. Return O.P. No. 474 of 1995 for presentation before the proper court.