Judgment :- R. Subbiah, J. 1. The application in O.A.No.1078 of 2012 has been filed by the applicant to grant an order of temporary injunction restraining the first respondent from using its name or domain name or website/URL, the words "India" or "Indian" and from conducting chess tournaments in the name and style of "National" championships / tournaments pending disposal of the suit. 2. The application in A.No.1956 of 2013 has been filed by the applicants to revoke the leave granted by this Court in A.No.5615 of 2012 vide its order dated 27.12.2012 under the circumstances, with exemplary costs. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as per their ranking in the civil suit. 4. The case of the plaintiff - All India Chess Federation, in brief, is as follows:- (a) The plaintiff is a society which started its operations in 1950 and was subsequently registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 on 12.12.1958. The plaintiff is now regulated by the provisions of Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act 1975. The plaintiff is also the only Chess Federation in India to be affiliated to Federation Internationale Des Echecs, shortly called as FIDE that controls the game of chess in the world. From its very inception in 1950, the plaintiff has been recognized by the Government of India as the national chess federation which controls / regulates the game of chess in India. Since 2010, the Government of India started certifying the national sports federations by issuing certificates under the National Sports Code. Consequently, the plaintiff has been issued certifications as the "National Sports Federation" for the discipline of chess for the calendar years 2010, 2011 and 2012. (b) The plaintiff has a right over its name as the same has been registered and no one else can use the name. Further, being recognised by the Government of India, the plaintiff has exclusive right to use the name "India" and conduct national events as per clause 3.6 and clause 8.3 of the National Sports Code. The plaintiff is exclusively responsible for conducting national level tournaments and selection of the national team that would represent India in International tournaments. Vide notification No.F.No.36/2-2010-SP II, the Government had declared all National Sports Federation as "Public Authority" in view of the public interest associated with these scope of activities. The plaintiff is exclusively responsible for conducting national level tournaments and selection of the national team that would represent India in International tournaments. Vide notification No.F.No.36/2-2010-SP II, the Government had declared all National Sports Federation as "Public Authority" in view of the public interest associated with these scope of activities. (c) As per the constitution of AICF, all the State Chess Associations are the accredited Members and they constitute the General Body that controls the affairs of the plaintiff and elects its office bearers, the President, the Secretary, the six Vice Presidents, the six Honorary Joint Secretaries and the Treasurer, which are honorary posts. (d) While so, in the year 1989, one P.T.Ummer Koya of Calicut was elected as the Honorary Secretary of the plaintiff. He was re-elected to the same post in 1993, 1997 and 2001. The continuous holding of the post of Hon.Secretary enabled P.T.Ummer Koya to commit acts of misfeasance and malfeasance. More than one crore rupees was found to have been swindled by him by manipulating the accounts of the plaintiff. It was discovered that the said P.T.Ummer Koya along with one S.L.Harsh, the second defendant herein, among others, connived with one another to make these illegal profits. Subsequently, various legal proceedings were initiated before this Court against the said P.T.Ummer Koya, S.L.Harsh, the second defendant herein and their coterie. (e) The founder members of the plaintiff viz., the State Chess Associations of Tamilnadu, Maharashtra and Delhi instituted a suit in C.S.No.52 of 2005 before this Court to restrain P.T.Ummer Koya from holding any post in the plaintiff till he is absolved of all charges of misfeasance and malfeasance. This Court, by an order dated 31.1.2005, granted interim injunction restraining the said P.T.Ummer Koya from interfering with the day to day affairs and activities of the plaintiff. (f) The said P.T.Ummer Koya and his supporters including the second defendant interfered with the administration of the plaintiff. This Court, by an order dated 31.1.2005, granted interim injunction restraining the said P.T.Ummer Koya from interfering with the day to day affairs and activities of the plaintiff. (f) The said P.T.Ummer Koya and his supporters including the second defendant interfered with the administration of the plaintiff. Since the above illegal acts had been committed at Chennai, within the jurisdiction of this Court, the three Founder Member Associations of the plaintiff viz., Tamil Nadu State Chess Association, Delhi Chess Association and Maharashtra Chess Association filed another suit in C.S.No.211 of 2005 in March 2005 against P.T.Ummer Koya, S.L.Harsh, the second defendant herein and others praying for a permanent injunction restraining them from interfering with the affairs of the plaintiff until they are absolved of their charges of misfeasance and malfeasance and for a permanent injunction restraining the second defendant herein from holding any post or interfering with the affairs of the plaintiff among other reliefs. (g) On 7.3.2005, this Court, vide interim order in C.S.No.211 of 2005, restrained the said P.T.Ummer Koya and the second defendant and others, their men, agents or representatives from interfering with the day to day administration and activities of the plaintiff pending disposal of the said suit. The said order of the learned single Judge was also confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in O.S.A.Nos.9 and 17 of 2006. While so, in the year 2007, the plaintiff filed C.S.No.396 of 2007 against the second defendant and others for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,11,12,831/- together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. In the said suit, in O.A.No.569 of 2007 and A.Nos.3667 and 3668 of 2007, this Court directed the second defendant herein and other defendants in that suit, to furnish adequate security for realisation of the suit claim. (h) In such a scenario, the second defendant and his coterie of inter-meddlers, devised another dubious means to interfere with the plaintiff to defeat the order of this Court and to dupe the chess playing fraternity in India and to illegally enrich himself. To interfere with the plaintiff, the second defendant has established the first defendant association in the name and style of "Chess Association of India". To interfere with the plaintiff, the second defendant has established the first defendant association in the name and style of "Chess Association of India". The second defendant and his coterie clearly intended to utilise the first defendant to pass off as the plaintiff i.e., as the National Sports Federation and hence they deliberately used the words "of India" as suffix in the name of the first defendant. The first defendant was used to dupe innocent chess players into believing that it is the National Sports Federation of Chess. The first defendant also started conducting tournaments under the name "National Championships". Further, various corporates extended sponsorship amount assuming that the tournaments sponsored by them were the authorised tournaments of the plaintiff and the Government of India. (i) On coming to know about the said tournaments, the plaintiff, in players' interest, immediately published a caution notice in Chennai dated 7.7.2010 on its website. Taking note of the caution, several players from Chennai refrained from participating in the tournaments conducted by the defendants. However, once again in 2011, it was discovered that the first defendant was conducting National Championships. This time, the Ministry of Youth and Sports Affairs, Government of India, vide letter dated 7.12.2011, issued a caution to the parties, which were hosting the games on behalf of the defendants and explicitly directed them not to use the name "India". The Government letter clearly indicates that only National Sports Federation recognised under the National Sports Code are entitled to use the word "India". Shockingly, in the year 2012, contrary to the Government's stern dictate, once again, the defendants without changing the name and by using the word "India", illegally conducted chess tournaments between 19th and 22nd December, 2012 named as "national" tournaments. The second defendant has created the first defendant and is leading it as its President with the intention of passing off the first defendant as the plaintiff herein. The second defendant has been injuncted by the orders of this Court from interfering with the affairs of the plaintiff. Still, to defeat the orders of this Court, the second defendant has registered the first defendant association to indirectly interfere with the plaintiff organisation by committing passing off. Further, the usage of the name "India" is contrary to the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950 as well as the National Sports Code. Still, to defeat the orders of this Court, the second defendant has registered the first defendant association to indirectly interfere with the plaintiff organisation by committing passing off. Further, the usage of the name "India" is contrary to the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950 as well as the National Sports Code. Hence, the plaintiff has filed the present suit for the following reliefs:- (i) For permanent injunction restraining the first defendant from using in its name or domain name or website / URL, the words "India" or "Indian" or "National" and ; (ii) For a permanent injunction restraining the defendants jointly and severally, their men, agents, assigns and representatives from conducting chess tournaments at any level including club, district, state or national level in the name and style of "National" championships / tournaments or such other name which indicates or misleads persons into believing that the defendants are conducting tournaments that are authorised by the Government of India or are rated by the Internationale Des Eches ( FIDE) ; (iii) For a permanent injunction restraining the first defendant or any other association / society formed by the second defendant from passing off itself as and for the plaintiff or as a National Sports Federation or a national sports body for the game of chess in India ; 5. Pending suit, the plaintiff has filed an application in O.A.No.1078 of 2012 to grant an order of temporary injunction restraining the first defendant from using its name or domain name or website/URL, the words "India" or "Indian" and from conducting chess tournaments in the name and style of "National" championships/ tournaments. This Court, by an order dated 28.12.2012, has granted an order of interim injunction. 6. On appearance, the defendants have filed counter in the said application and the averments made in the counter, in brief, are as follows:- (a) The first defendant is a registered society, which has been registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and has its registered office at Lucknow. It was registered during the year 2009 and it has no other office or place of business except Lucknow. The primary objective of the first defendant is to promote and sponsor chess players and the game of chess and to raise the standards and quality of the game. It was registered during the year 2009 and it has no other office or place of business except Lucknow. The primary objective of the first defendant is to promote and sponsor chess players and the game of chess and to raise the standards and quality of the game. In order to achieve this objective, it has from time to time conducted coaching camps, mutual chess tournaments primarily in Lucknow. It has never organised or conducted any State chess nor sponsored any chess tournament in Tamil Nadu. The second defendant permanently resides in Rajasthan and has no place of residence in Chennai or elsewhere in Tamil Nadu. Hence, no part of cause of action would arise within the jurisdiction of this Court. (b) The plaintiff is guilty of suppression of material facts since the plaintiff has conveniently concealed the fact that proceedings have been initiated against them before the Competition Commission of India in Complaint No.79 of 2011 filed by few chess players from Delhi. In fact, the defendants were also summoned and examined in the context of the National Sport Development Code 2011 as well as the letter dated 7.12.2011 of the Ministry of Sports to the Pune Chess Association and the Karnataka Chess Association. It is reliably learnt that the Director General of Competition Commission of India has found that the plaintiff is in a dominant position in the field of chess and that it has abused its dominance by imposing unfair and discriminatory conditions in the market and that the conduct of the plaintiff is violative of various provisions of the Competition Act, by indulging anti-competitive practices by preventing the players from playing chess tournaments organised by the second defendant. But, these facts were concealed by them. In fact, the plaintiff moved this Court by filing a writ petition in W.P.No.34039 of 2012, challenging the proceedings initiated against them by the Competition Commission of India and obtained interim orders on 18.12.2012. These concealed facts which would have a vital bearing on the issues involved in this case have been dishonestly suppressed by the plaintiff to obtain exparte interim orders from this Court. (c) The present suit and the application for interim injunction are hit by delay and laches. The first defendant was incorporated in the year 2009 and it commenced its activities by using the name "India" in December, 2009. (c) The present suit and the application for interim injunction are hit by delay and laches. The first defendant was incorporated in the year 2009 and it commenced its activities by using the name "India" in December, 2009. The principal object of the first defendant is to promote the game of chess and to encourage players from the privileged class who are not able to afford the entry fee upto Rs.25,000/- levied by the plaintiff. The plaintiff despite being aware of the existence of the first defendant in December, 2009, neither initiated any action against the first defendant nor objected to the usage of the phrase "India" or "National' in the name of the first defendant until 27.12.2012. The plaintiff has instituted the suit after expiry of almost three years and the plaintiff has not given any explanation for the delay of more than three years. Hence, the plaintiff was estopped from objecting the usage of the word "India" or "National" etc., and cannot seek any relief against the defendants. (d) The reliefs sought for by the plaintiff in the main suit and the application for interim injunction are one and the same. Therefore, the interim injunction already granted by this Court is liable to be vacated. (e) The basis for the allegations made in the plaint is that the National Sports Code 2011 prevents the usage of the word "India" in the name of any sports federation and the usage of the word "National" in tournaments conducted by such federations. But, the National Sports Code 2011 does not have any mandatory force or effect. Even assuming without admitting that the National Sports Code, 2011 could be made applicable to the first defendant, it would be false and based on a wrong interpretation of the National Sports Code, 2011. As regards the allegation that the word "India" cannot be used as part of the first defendant's name, it has been stated that National Sports Code Development of India, 2011 states that the usage of the word "India" suggests the patronage of Government of India by making a reference to the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950. The said Act does not anywhere prohibit the usage of the words "India" and "Indian". The said Act does not anywhere prohibit the usage of the words "India" and "Indian". The Act merely provides that the words "Government of India" or the name of any State Government cannot be used unless the consent of the Central Government has been obtained. The name of the first defendant does not in any manner indicate or give any impression that the first defendant enjoys the patronage of the Government of India or any State Government. Therefore, the name "Chess Association of India" is valid, lawful and not in violation of the said Act or any other law in force. (f) In any event, the said Code is inconsistent with the provisions of the said Act and would not therefore have any legal force or binding effect. Even assuming without admitting that the National Sports Code 2011 would apply to the first defendant, the same only provides that the National Sports Federations recognised by the Ministry of Youth Affairs would, on failure to adhere to the National Sports Code, loose its All India Character and cannot operate beyond the boundaries of the State concerned where it is registered. Since the allegations of the plaintiff are based on false and wrong interpretation of the National Sports Code 2011, the reliefs sought for in the plaint would be unsustainable and the application for interim injunction is liable to be dismissed. The first defendant society has been registered in Lucknow and the second defendant resides and carries on business at Rajasthan. Therefore, both the defendants are located outside the jurisdiction of this Court. Both the defendants have neither any presence in Chennai nor carry on any business in Chennai. The first defendant has till date conducted chess tournament only in Lucknow. The second defendant does not dwell within the jurisdiction of this Court. Therefore, no cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court. Thus, they pray for the dismissal of the application for interim injunction. 7. The plaintiff has also filed rejoinder reiterating the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the application for interim injunction. 8. Apart from filing counter in O.A.No.1078 of 2012, the defendants have also taken out an application in A.No.1956 of 2013 to revoke the leave granted by this Court on 27.12.2012. 7. The plaintiff has also filed rejoinder reiterating the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the application for interim injunction. 8. Apart from filing counter in O.A.No.1078 of 2012, the defendants have also taken out an application in A.No.1956 of 2013 to revoke the leave granted by this Court on 27.12.2012. The sum and substance of the affidavit filed in support of the said application, in brief, is as follows:- (a) The first defendant is a registered society, which has been registered with the District Registrar of Societies, Lucknow, under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and has its registered office at Lucknow. All its Activities are controlled and regulated from its registered office at Lucknow in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The primary object of the first defendant is to promote and sponsor chess players who are under privileged and maximize their opportunities to play game of chess and to raise the standards and quality of the game. In order to achieve this objective, from time to time the society has been conducting activities such as coaching mutual competition at all levels viz., club level, inter club or inter state or India level and also conducted chess tournaments primarily in Lucknow and in other places, but never conducted any National Chess Championships or such equal event in Tamil Nadu. The second defendant permanently resides in Rajasthan and has no place of residence in Chennai or elsewhere in Tamil Nadu. Hence, no part of cause of action would arise within the jurisdiction of this Court. In fact, in para 24 of the plaint, the plaintiff has stated that certain events had occurred in Chennai, which would confer jurisdiction on this Court and the said averments are incorrect and wholly misleading. (b) The suits filed by the plaintiff before this Court in C.S.No.211 of 2005 and 369 of 2007 will not give rise to any cause of action to file the present suit before this Court. In fact, C.S.No.211 of 2005 has been filed by the three Chess Associations viz., Chess Association of Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra and Delhi as against the second defendant in his capacity as President of plaintiff federation. In the said suit, interim orders had been passed against the second defendant from interfering with the day to day functioning of the plaintiff. In fact, C.S.No.211 of 2005 has been filed by the three Chess Associations viz., Chess Association of Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra and Delhi as against the second defendant in his capacity as President of plaintiff federation. In the said suit, interim orders had been passed against the second defendant from interfering with the day to day functioning of the plaintiff. Similarly, the order of the Division Bench of this Court dated 12.6.2006 made in O.S.A.Nos.330 and 335 of 2005 and in O.S.A.Nos.9 and 17 of 2006 was related to the impugned election of the plaintiff federation held in 2005 for a term of four years and the impugned election dispute is till today sub-judice before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.3610 of 2006. All the above legal proceedings have been initiated against the second defendant while he was holding the office of the President of the plaintiff herein, which has its registered office situated in Chennai. The said suits had nothing to do with the first defendant viz., the Chess Association of India. Pendency of the earlier legal proceedings will not give rise to any cause of action. The issues involved in the earlier proceedings have no bearing or relevance whatsoever with the issues raised in the present suit. The first defendant is a registered society based in Lucknow and the said society has not conducted any chess tournament as alleged by the plaintiff in Tamil Nadu. Therefore, the allegations being wholly unfounded and unsubstantiated, cannot be relied on by the plaintiff for the purpose of establishing that this Court would have jurisdiction to try the suit. Thus, the defendants sought for revocation of the leave. 9. The plaintiff has filed a counter affidavit in the said application for revocation of leave, which contains the following facts:- (a) Since the defendants are located outside the jurisdiction of this Court, the plaintiff had filed O.A.No.5615 of 2012 seeking to leave to sue and this Court was pleased to grant leave vide order dated 27.12.2012 on the ground that part of cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court. All the averments made in the affidavit filed by the defendants in the present application are the matters for consideration at the time of trial and deserve absolutely no consideration at this stage. All the averments made in the affidavit filed by the defendants in the present application are the matters for consideration at the time of trial and deserve absolutely no consideration at this stage. (b) The very setting up of the first defendant as the National Body for chess by the second defendant was to illegally by-pass various judicial pronouncements of this Court in C.S.Nos.52 and 211 of 2005, whereby the second defendant had already been injuncted from interfering with or participating in the affairs of the plaintiff. Since the orders in C.S.Nos.52 and 211 of 2004 were passed by this Court in Chennai, it is absolutely clear that a critical part of cause of action of the present suit arose in Chennai and consequently, this Court clearly has jurisdiction to entertain the present suit. (c) Though the defendants are not residing within the jurisdiction of this Court, they are organizing National level chess tournaments in which the players from Tamil Nadu as well as all over India are solicited and allowed to participate in the tournament and since the players from Tamil Nadu are being misled by these so-called National tournaments, a substantial part of cause of action arises within the jurisdiction of this Court and hence, this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the present suit. The leave to sue already granted to the plaintiff cannot be revoked on the basis of any submission made by the defendants countering the averments in the plaint as they are only the averments in plaint that are to be considered while granting or revoking leave to sue and any defence put in need not be considered at this stage. (d) The question as to whether the defendants are conducting tournaments in Tamil Nadu or not, has to be decided at the time of trial. The fact of publication of the caution notice dated 7.7.2010 on the website of the plaintiff together with the fact that players from Tamil Nadu accessed the defendants' website from Tamil Nadu and were deceived into believing that tournaments conducted by the defendants were the tournaments sanctioned by the plaintiff and thereafter expended time and money to participate in the same would constitute a crucial and significant part of cause of action for the present suit that has clearly arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court. Thus, the plaintiff sought for the dismissal of the application for revocation of leave granted to them. 10. (A) It is the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff that the plaintiff federation is a National Sports Federation and it has been recognised by the Government of India as the National Sports Federation for Chess to control, regulate and develop the game of chess in India. One P.T.Ummer Koya and the second defendant were originally members of the plaintiff association. Since they have swindled the money of the plaintiff and committed the acts of misfeasance and malfeasance, the founder members of the plaintiff instituted a civil suit in C.S.No.52 of 2005 as against the said P.T.Ummer Koya to restrain him from holding any post in the plaintiff association. Even thereafter, the said P.T.Ummer Koya and his supporters were interfering with the administration of the plaintiff and hence, another suit was filed by another three founder members of the plaintiff in C.S.No.211 of 2005 as against P.T.Ummer Koya, the second defendant and others, for a permanent injunction restraining them from interfering with the affairs of the plaintiff until they are absolved of their charges of misfeasance and malfeasance. In the said suit, an order of interim injunction was granted by this Court on 7.3.2005. On 13.11.2005, on due consideration of the misfeasance and malfeasance committed by the said P.T.Ummer Koya, the second defendant and other associates, the General Body of the plaintiff authorised the Secretary to initiate appropriate civil and criminal proceedings against them for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,11,12,831/- and for recovery of the records and other articles movable and immovables of the plaintiff. Pursuant to the same, the plaintiff had also filed a suit in C.S.No.396 of 2007 on the file of this Court. In spite of the interim injunction granted by this Court not to interfere with the day today administration and activities of the plaintiff, the second defendant and his coterie of inter-meddlers, instead of mending their ways, devised another dubious means to dupe the chess playing fraternity in India and started the first defendant association in the name of Chess Association of India. Thus, the second defendant and his coterie clearly intended to utilise the first defendant to pass off as the plaintiff i.e., as the National Chess Associations of India by deliberately using the words "of India" as suffix in the name of the first defendant. In this regard, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff has submitted that the usage of the word "India" in the first defendant is illegal as it suggests patronage of Government of India. He has also invited the attention of this Court to the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950 and submitted that as per clause 7(i) of the schedule to the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, unless the first defendant has obtained any permission from the Central Government under the provisions of the Act, they cannot use the word "India". Usage of the word "India" in the name of the first defendant is clearly illegal in the light of the fact that the first defendant is admittedly not a National Sports Federation. (B) Further, the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff by inviting the attention of this Court to clause 3.6 of the National Sports Code, submitted that the National Sports Federation, who have the recognition including the annual recognition of Government of India in the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, enjoy various facilities / concessions provided by the Government of India. Only in the event of obtaining recognition as a National Sports Federation by the Government of India, the first defendant federation can use the word "India" whereas the first defendant purports to act as a "National Body" for chess in India. Thus, the first defendant is attempting to dupe innocent chess players into believing that it is the national chess federation. In this regard, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff has also invited the attention of this Court to a judgment of the Delhi High Court reported in 212 (2014) DLT 89 - Indian Olympics Association v. Union of India, and submitted that in the said judgment, it has been categorically stated that in all the national level, there will be only one recognised federation for each discipline of sport. Since the plaintiff organisation has already been recognised as the National Sports Federation for Chess, the first defendant association cannot be created for the same objective by using the word "India". Since the plaintiff organisation has already been recognised as the National Sports Federation for Chess, the first defendant association cannot be created for the same objective by using the word "India". Further, the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff submitted that the first defendant receives corporate sponsorship from various companies. These actions of the defendants are clearly prohibited by the National Sports Code as explained by the Delhi High Court in the case of Indian Olympics Association. (C) Further, the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff by inviting the attention of this Court to clause 3.6.2 and 3.6.3 and 3.6.8 of the National Sports Code, submitted that the said Code clearly prohibits any organisation other than National Sports Federation from conducting tournaments in the name and style of "India". In this regard, learned counsel has also invited the attention of this Court to the letter of Government of India dated 7.12.2012 issued to the Pune Chess Association and Karnataka State Chess Association and submitted that in the said letter, the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports directed the said associations to inform the first defendant herein viz., Chess Association of India that they would desist from using the word "India" and also from organising any National Level events. Hence, the plaintiff has filed the present suit and pending suit, they have obtained an order of interim injunction. But, suppressing the interim order, the defendants herein, filed a writ petition in W.P.No.3499 of 2013 before the High Court of Delhi and obtained an interim order in their favour. When the plaintiff came to know about the interim order passed by the Delhi High Court, they got impleaded themselves in the said writ petition and got the interim order vacated and as such, as on today, the defendants are not entitled to use the word "India" since the said word could be used only by the National Sports Federation. Further more, as on today, the plaintiff association alone was recognised by the Government of India as National Sports Federation. In this regard, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff has also relied upon the same judgment reported in 2014 SCC OnLine Del 2967 : (2014) 212 DLT 389 (DB) - Indian Olympic Association v. Union of India. Further more, as on today, the plaintiff association alone was recognised by the Government of India as National Sports Federation. In this regard, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff has also relied upon the same judgment reported in 2014 SCC OnLine Del 2967 : (2014) 212 DLT 389 (DB) - Indian Olympic Association v. Union of India. (D) It is the yet another submission of the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff that the first defendant's domain name / name Chess Association of India is very similar to the plaintiff's name All India Chess Federation. The two crucial words "Chess" and "India" are common and the word "Association" could be construed as members of federation, viz., the plaintiff organisation. Since, the defendants are using the name, which is similar or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's name, they are entitled for interim injunction on the ground of passing off. In this regard, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff has also relied upon the judgments reported in 2006 (33) PTC 79 (Bom) - International Association of Lions Club v. National Association of Indian Lions & Ors and A.I.R.2001 Delhi 499 - M/s.Helpage India v. M/s.Helpage Garhwar and submitted that the plaintiff is entitled to the remedies under passing off, even though it is not trading goods in the market and are merely rendering services. (E) With regard to the allegation made in the counter that the plaintiff had suppressed the action initiated by the Competition Commission of India as against the plaintiff in the plaint, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff submitted that since some of the players have participated the events conducted by the first defendant, the plaintiff had initiated action against those players. The said players approached the High Court of Delhi by filing a writ petition and the High Court of Delhi directed them to approach the Competition Commission, India. But, the proceedings of the Competition Commissioner has now been stayed by this Court by an order dated 18.12.2012 in W.P.No.34039 of 2012. Therefore, the proceedings pending before the Competition Commission has no relevance to the issue involved in the present suit. Hence, the non-mentioning of the proceedings pending before the Competition Commission of India certainly will not amount to suppression of any material facts. Therefore, the proceedings pending before the Competition Commission has no relevance to the issue involved in the present suit. Hence, the non-mentioning of the proceedings pending before the Competition Commission of India certainly will not amount to suppression of any material facts. (F) With regard to the allegation made by the learned counsel appearing for the defendants that there is laches on the part of the plaintiff in filing the present suit, it is replied by the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff that in order to raise the defence of laches, the defendants must prove that the plaintiff has caused an unreasonable delay in pursuing a right or a claim in a way that it prejudices the defendants. But, the plaintiff has not caused any unreasonable delay in pursuing their claim which is evident from the issuance of the Caution Notice dated 9.12.2009 to its players / members by warning them that the first defendant association is not recognised by the Government of India and hence, the participation in the tournaments conducted by the first defendant would not benefit the players. Therefore, the plaintiff has not caused any unreasonable delay. In this regard, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff has relied upon the judgment reported in 2009 (40) PTC 346 (Bom) - International Association of Lions Clubs v. Association of Lions India & Ors. (G) With regard to the application filed by the defendants to revoke the leave granted by this Court, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff submitted that the defendants are already facing three civil suits before this Court viz., C.S.Nos.52 and 211 of 2005 and 396 of 2007. In the suit in C.S.No.52 of 2005 filed by the three founder members of the plaintiff as against the second defendant, there is an interim order restraining the second defendant from interfering with the day to day affairs of the plaintiff until he is absolved of his charges of malfeasance and misfeasance. Thus, the second defendant was restrained from interfering with the management of the plaintiff organisation. Though the second defendant was restrained from interfering with the day to day affairs of the plaintiff by this Court, now the second defendant intends to interfere with the plaintiff's management indirectly and created the second defendant in order to interfere with the smooth running of the plaintiff. Though the second defendant was restrained from interfering with the day to day affairs of the plaintiff by this Court, now the second defendant intends to interfere with the plaintiff's management indirectly and created the second defendant in order to interfere with the smooth running of the plaintiff. Therefore, the cause of action for filing the suit arose within the jurisdiction of this Court. Further, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff submitted that the second defendant who has already been injuncted by this Court, had set up the first defendant only to defeat, frustrate, circumvent the various orders of this Court. In fact, the above facts have been clearly set out in paras 12, 23 and 24 of the plaint. In this regard, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff by relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Indian Mineral & Chemicals v. Deutsche Bank reported in (2004) 12 SCC 376 , submitted that when a clear assertion is made in the plaint, the said assertion must be assumed to be true for the purpose of determining whether leave is liable to be revoked on a point of demur. (H) Further, the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff submitted that the defendants advertised and announced that they would be organizing all India level biggest ever prize fund chess tournament in their website www.chessassociationinfoindia.com which is accessible and viewed all over India including Chennai, Tamil Nadu. The said website contains materials such as Registration forms and Registration Renewal forms and contact forms and can be accessed by chess players and others anywhere in India including Tamil Nadu, since the said website is an interactive one. Since several chess players from Chennai, Tamil Nadu were misled by the defendants' deception and fraud and were induced to participate in these unauthorised tournaments, a substantial portion of the cause of action has arisen in Chennai. In this regard, learned counsel has relied upon the judgments reported in 2007 (35) PTC 542 (Mad) - Parle Products v. Surya Foods and an unreported judgment of the Full Bench of this Court dated 4.12.2014 made in O.S.A.Nos.111 and 112 of 2008 - Duro Flex Pvt. Ltd. v. Duroflex Sittings System.Thus, the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff submitted that this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit and the application filed by the defendants to revoke the leave is without any subsistence. (I) Further, the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff, by relying upon Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act, submitted that when the defendants invade or threaten to invade the plaintiff's right or enjoyment of the property, the Court can grant a perpetual injunction. Thus, he prays that the interim injunction already granted by this Court has to be made absolute and consequently, the application filed by the defendants for revocation of leave has to be dismissed. 11. (A) Countering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff, learned counsel appearing for the defendants submitted that the entire submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff is based on National Sports Code, 2011 but the National Sports Code does not have any mandatory force or effect and it is not authorised by any legislative enactment and therefore, it would not be valid and binding on the defendants. Even assuming that National Sports Code, 2011 is an executive action taken in exercise of powers under Article 77 of the Constitution of India, the said Code does not satisfy the mandatory requirements of Article 77 of the Constitution of India. In this regard, learned counsel appearing for the defendants has also submitted that all the executive actions of Government of India are required to be taken in the name of the President of India and are required to be authenticated in the manner specified in Article 77(2) of the Constitution of India. A perusal of the National Sports Code, 2011 would show that it has not been issued in the name of the President of India. Therefore, the National Sports Code has no force. In this regard, learned counsel appearing for the defendants has also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gulf Goans Hotels Co. Ltd. & another v. Union of India & others. (B)Further, the learned counsel appearing for the defendants submitted that the National Sports Code relies upon the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950. But, the said Act does not anywhere prohibit the use of the words "India" or "Indian". It merely provides that any name which suggests or is calculated to suggest the patronage of the Government of India or the Government of State shall not be used. But, the said Act does not anywhere prohibit the use of the words "India" or "Indian". It merely provides that any name which suggests or is calculated to suggest the patronage of the Government of India or the Government of State shall not be used. Therefore, the name of Chess Association of India is perfectly valid and the provisions of the said Act cannot be applied to the Sports Bodies like the plaintiff or the first defendant. In this regard, learned counsel appearing for the defendants has relied upon the judgment of this Court dated 8.2.2008 made in W.A.No.4083 of 2003 - Tamil Nadu Chess Association v. The District Registrar & Another, wherein it has been held that the provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of the said Act would only restrict the use of Emblems or Seals or the names of the State Government or Central Government in consonance with any trade activity and as such, the said provisions cannot be considered as restriction imposed on an association involving in sports activities. (C) With regard to jurisdiction, learned counsel appearing for the defendants submitted that in order to bring the suit within the jurisdiction of this Court, the plaintiff has relied upon the earlier suits filed by them before this Court in C.S.Nos.52 and 211 of 2005 and 396 of 2007. But, the issues involved in those suits are totally irrelevant to the issue involved in the present suit. Therefore, pendency of those suits certainly will not give rise to any cause of action to file the present suit. In this regard, learned counsel has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Alchemist Limited and another v. State Bank of Sikkim and others reported in 2007 (11) SCC 335 wherein, in para 37 of the said judgment, it has been held that for the purpose of deciding whether facts averred would or would not constitute a part of cause of action, one has to consider whether such fact constitutes a material, essential or integral part of the cause of action. (D) Further, learned counsel appearing for the defendants submitted that the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff to restrain the first defendant from using their name or domain name or website / URL, the words "India" or "Indian" or "National" and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants jointly and severally, their men, agents, assigns and representatives from conducting chess tournaments at any level including club, district, state or national level in the name and style of "National" championships / tournaments or such other name which indicates or misleads persons into believing that the defendants are conducting tournaments that are authorised by the Government of India or are rated by the Internationale Des Eches (FIDE). But, the first defendant society is a registered society at Lucknow and they are also not conducting any tournaments within Tamil Nadu. The present suit has been filed by the society which has been registered with the Registrar of Societies, Chennai. Clause 12 of the Letters Patent does not contemplate or envisage the place of residence or business of the plaintiff for the purpose of determining jurisdiction. In this regard, learned counsel appearing for the defendants has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Aligarh Muslim University and another v. Vinay Engineering Enterprises (P) Ltd. and another reported in (1994) 4 Supreme Court Cases 710. (E) Further, learned counsel appearing for the defendants by relying upon the judgment of the High Court of Delhi reported in 2010 (42) PTC 361 Delhi - Banyan Tree Holding (P) Ltd. v. A.Murali Krishna Reddy and another, submitted that a mere hosting of a website which can be accessible from anyone within the jurisdiction of this Court is not sufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court. Since the defendants are hosting the website which can be viewed anywhere in India including Chennai, the same does not mean that this Court will have jurisdiction to entertain the suit. (F) Further, learned counsel appearing for the defendants, by inviting the attention of this Court to the various letters of the players filed by the plaintiff at page Nos.333 to 347 of the typed set of papers and submitted that none of the letters has been sent by the players at Chennai, within the jurisdiction of this Court. (F) Further, learned counsel appearing for the defendants, by inviting the attention of this Court to the various letters of the players filed by the plaintiff at page Nos.333 to 347 of the typed set of papers and submitted that none of the letters has been sent by the players at Chennai, within the jurisdiction of this Court. Not even a single document was filed by the plaintiff to show that the players at Chennai accessed through the website of the defendants. Therefore, this Court will not have a jurisdiction to entertain the suit. (G) Further, the learned counsel appearing for the defendants submitted that even in the judgment of the High Court of Delhi in India T.V. case, the Delhi High Court in para 48 of the said judgment, has observed that even where a website is interactive, the level of interactivity would be relevant and limited interactivity may also not be sufficient for a court to exercise jurisdiction. When that being the position, certainly the present suit is not maintainable on the ground that the defendants' website could be accessed from Chennai. (H) With regard to the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff that the plaintiff is entitled for the relief sought for in the plaint on the ground of passing off, learned counsel appearing for the defendants replied that there is no infringement of trade mark involved in this case and hence, the question of applying the principle of passing off does not arise. (I) Further, learned counsel appearing for the defendants submitted that the present suit is a counter blast to the proceedings pending before the Competition Commission. The Competition Commission of India has initiated action against the plaintiff. The Director General of the Competition Commission of India has found that the plaintiff is in a dominant position in the field of chess and that it has abused its dominance by imposing unfair conditions in the market and that the conduct of the plaintiff is violative of the provisions of the Competition Act by indulging in anti-competitive practices, etc. Challenging the same, the plaintiff has filed W.P.No.34039 of 2012 and obtained stay of the said proceedings before the Competition Commission of India. But, this fact was purposely suppressed in the present application for interim injunction. Hence, the plaintiff is not entitled for interim injunction on the ground of suppression of material facts. Challenging the same, the plaintiff has filed W.P.No.34039 of 2012 and obtained stay of the said proceedings before the Competition Commission of India. But, this fact was purposely suppressed in the present application for interim injunction. Hence, the plaintiff is not entitled for interim injunction on the ground of suppression of material facts. (J) Further, the learned counsel appearing for the defendants submitted that the first defendant was incorporated on 4.11.2009 and the plaintiff was aware of such incorporation as early as in December, 2009. Despite being aware of the existence of the first defendant in the year 2009, the plaintiff has not come forward to file the present suit within three years and the delay has also not been explained by them. Hence, the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief on the ground of delay and laches. Thus, he sought to vacate the interim injunction already granted by this Court and also sought for revocation of the leave granted by this Court. 12. Keeping the submissions made on either side, I have carefully gone through the entire materials available on record. 13. In view of the submissions made on either side, the following points fall for consideration:- (i) whether the plaintiff is entitled to use the name or domain name or website / URL, the words "India" or "Indian" or "National" ? (ii) Whether this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit ? (iii) Whether there is any suppression of material facts ? (iv) Whether the interim injunction already granted by this Court suit is liable to be vacated on the ground of delay and laches ? 14. Point No.(i):- The plaintiff is a society which started their operation in the year 1950. Subsequently, the plaintiff was registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 at Madras. The name of the plaintiff is All India Chess Federation, which is affiliated to Federation Internationale Des Echecs (shortly called as FIDE), that controls the game of chess in the world. The Government of India issued certificate under the National Sports Development of India Code, certifying that the plaintiff is a National Sports Federation. The said recognition will enable the plaintiff federation to avail itself financial assistance under the Scheme of Assistance to National Sports Federations and other relevant schemes of the Ministry as well as other forms of support available from the Government to recognize National Sports Federations. The said recognition will enable the plaintiff federation to avail itself financial assistance under the Scheme of Assistance to National Sports Federations and other relevant schemes of the Ministry as well as other forms of support available from the Government to recognize National Sports Federations. The second defendant, who is the erstwhile Secretary of the plaintiff federation, started the first defendant in the name and style of "Chess Association of India". The first defendant purports to act as a National Body for chess in India. In fact, the Government of India, by letter dated 7.12.2012, informed the Pune Chess Association and Karnataka Chess Association that the tournaments conducted by them on behalf of the first defendant was unauthorised. In fact, the Ministry of Youth and Affairs & Sports, New Delhi directed the said Associations to inform the first defendant that the first defendant would desist from using the word "India" from the letter head of their organisation. The relevant portion from the said letter is as follows:- "2. According to the guidelines of the Government of India, Ministry of Youth Affairs & Sports only one National Level Federation for each discipline of sports is given recognition. Since the Ministry had already given recognition to All India Chess Federation (AICF), with Shri J.C.D.Prabhakar as President, being the National Level Federation responsible for promotion of Chess Sport in the country, no other Federation / Association can organize any tournament of Chess as a National Level Tournament. Moreover, according to the letter dated 5.7.2011 issued by the Ministry (copy enclosed) only a recognised National Sports Federation is entitled to use the expression "of India" or "Indians" in its title and can organize and conduct any officially recognized event, including Annual National championship, for the sport. 3. Keeping in view the position stated above, you are directed to inform the Chess Association of India that you will desist from using the word "India" from the letter head of your organisation and also from organizing any National Level events through your organisation. You should also get in touch with the recognised National Sports Federation i.e., All India Chess Federation for further directions, if any." Thus, it the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff that except the National Sports Federation, no other federation is entitled to use the word "India". You should also get in touch with the recognised National Sports Federation i.e., All India Chess Federation for further directions, if any." Thus, it the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff that except the National Sports Federation, no other federation is entitled to use the word "India". In this regard, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff drew the attention of this Court to clause 3.6 of the National Sports Development Code of India, 2011. The relevant portion of the said clause is usefully extracted hereunder:- "3.6. The National Sports Federations who have the recognition including the annual recognition of Government of India in the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, enjoy various facilities / concessions provided by the Government of India. However, failure to comply with the Government Guidelines issued from time to time could result in one or more of the following consequences for the NSF concerned:- (1) Shall not be able to select the national teams and represent India in any international event or international forum (Reference: entry 10 and 13 of Union List in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India and observation of Hon'ble High Court in the case referred to above. (2) Shall not be allowed to use the word "India" in its name since inclusion of the word "India" suggests the patronage of Government of India. (Reference: The Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950 which prohibits the use of India in the name of any entity without prior approval of the Government, as it may suggest or be construed to suggest the patronage of the Government). (3) Shall lose its All India character and may not be able to regulate and control the concerned sports discipline in the country. (Reference: Most of the NSFs are registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 or under a State Societies Registration Act which are operative in a particular State and as such without the recognition of Central Government, the NSF cannot operate beyond the boundaries of the State concerned where it is registered). (4) ... (5) ... (6) ... (7) Participation in national and international events organised by NSFs that are not recognised by Government of India in the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports shall not be considered for appointment to government job under sports quota. (Ref: DOPT's orders). (8) ... (4) ... (5) ... (6) ... (7) Participation in national and international events organised by NSFs that are not recognised by Government of India in the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports shall not be considered for appointment to government job under sports quota. (Ref: DOPT's orders). (8) ... (9) The sportspersons participating in national championships organised by NSFs not recognised by Government of India in the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports shall not be entitled for railway concession or other concessions granted for this purpose." Thus, by relying upon the said clauses, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff submitted that except the National Sports Federation, others are not entitled to use the word "India". In this regard, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff has also placed reliance upon Section 3 of the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950 as well as clause 7(i) of the Schedule to the said Act and the same are usefully extracted hereunder:- "Section 3 - Prohibition of improper use of certain emblems and names:- Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, no person shall, except in such cases and under such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government, use or continue to use for the purpose of any trade, business, calling or profession, or in the title of any patent, or in any trade mark or design, any name or emblem specified in the Schedule or any colourable limitation thereof without the previous permission of the Central Government of such officer of Government as may be authorised in this behalf by the Central Government." "Clause 7. Any name which may suggest or be calculated to suggest-- (i) the patronage of the Government of India or the Government or a State; or " Thus, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff by relying upon the said provisions, submitted that a combined reading of Section 3 of the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950 and clause 7(i) of the Schedule to the said Act would show that any name suggest or to be calculated to suggest the patronage of the Government of India or the Government or a State cannot be used without the prior permission of the Government. But, in the instant case, admittedly the first defendant has not obtained any permission from the Central Government under Section 3 of the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950. Hence, as per Section 3 of the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950 and clause 7(i) of the Schedule to the said Act as well as clauses 3.6.2 and 3.6.3 of the National Sports Code, 2011 the first defendant is not entitled to use the word "India". 15. But, it is the reply of the learned counsel appearing for the defendants that the National Sports Code has not any mandatory force or effect. Even assuming for a moment that the National Sports Code is an executive action taken in exercise of powers under Article 77 of the Constitution of India, the same are required to be taken in the name of the President under Article 77 (1) of the Constitution of India. But, the National Sports Code does not indicate that it has been issued in the name of the President of India. Thus, the learned counsel appearing for the defendants submitted that the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff by relying upon the provisions of the National Sports Code and Section 3 of the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950 and clause 7(i) of the Schedule to the said Act cannot be countenanced. But, the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff in the case of Indian Olympic Association v. Union of India reported in 2014 SCC OnLine Del 2967 : (2014) 212 DLT 389 (DB), gives a fitting answer to this issue. In paras 73, 85 and 86 of the said judgment, the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court has held as follows:- "73. State or social concern in regard to regulation of sports can be achieved, inter alia, through the method of requiring certain definitive policies to be followed by the NSFs and the IOA to ensure its representative character, aimed at the larger common good in the world of sport and to avoid development of cliques or cabals in sporting federations or bodies. Such cabals beget not only concentration of power, but thrive in opaqueness in all their dealings-functioning, finances and most importantly selection of sportspersons to represent the country in the concerned field of sport. Such cabals beget not only concentration of power, but thrive in opaqueness in all their dealings-functioning, finances and most importantly selection of sportspersons to represent the country in the concerned field of sport. The overriding concern of the Central Government in ensuring that the decision making are by bodies which such cabals operate, is sought to be achieved by such tenure restrictions. So long as the Central Government has the authority to recognize the national sporting federations and the IOA, even for the purpose of funding and declaring which of them is entitled to use the national emblem or use the term "India", insistence on such regulations, is legitimate. The important aspect here is that the Central Government, through the code is not saying that absent such compliance, there would be any deprivation of an existing right; all that it suggests is that if recognition and funding for various purposes is sought (towards travel, boarding and lodging, coaching facilities, tax exemptions, etc) the NSF has to comply with these guidelines. In other words, it is not as if the violation of such norms leads to any adverse consequence, in the form of a penal sanction, or blacklisting. The body simply cannot claim to select a team that represents "India" or hold itself out as "Team India". The petitioners' argument that Sports Code provisions are unenforceable, as they are not "law" therefore, is without merits. 85. In the opinion of the Court, aid or recognition is not a one way street. The Central Government's legitimate right to recognize these sporting bodies, for the purpose of use of the expression "India" enabling national sports teams sponsored by these NSFs and IOA in turn use that appellation, carries with it, the right to insist that certain basic standards are followed. With the right to grant or withhold such recognition is also the right to spell out conditions, for the grant of aid-as such is undoubtedly the case, because travel expenditure, and assistance for procurement of equipment would be aid (apart from use of state resources such as stadia, customs duty waiver for importation of equipment, facilitation and coordination during international events etc). The figure mentioned on behalf of the Central Government towards positive grants for use these last four years for travel purposes alone was Rs.435 crores. The figure mentioned on behalf of the Central Government towards positive grants for use these last four years for travel purposes alone was Rs.435 crores. Considering that the NSF and IOA are free to use the national status conferred upon them by the recognition and garner revenue, in the form of endorsement, sponsorships, sale of event coverage rights to the media, etc, there cannot be two opinions about existence of an overriding public or state concerns that such bodies do not remain the preserve of the few, or worse, the moneyed and the powerful. 86. For the foregoing reasons, it is held that the petitioners' contentions are rejected. The Court reiterates its conclusions that international sports and regulation of NSFs, and IOA, in respect of the matters which are the subject of these proceedings, falls within Entry 97 of the First List to the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India. The Central Government can insist upon adherence to these provisions, without the aid of legislation. It is also held that the Sports Code does not violate the freedom under Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution. Neither are its provisions arbitrary. The tenure restrictions impugned in this case can and are insisted upon as a part of the public interest in efficient and fair administration of such NSFs. This Court also specifically notes the letter / notice dated 20.9.1975, which forms part of the Sports Code, as modified by the later letter of 1.5.2010, to the following extent: i. The President of any recognised National Sports Federation, including the Indian Olympic Association can hold the office for a maximum period of twelve years with or without break: ii. The Secretary (or by whatever other designation such as Secretary General or General Secretary by which he is referred to) and the Treasurer of any recognized National Sports Federation, including the Indian Olympic Association, may serve a maximum of two successive terms of four years each after which a minimum 'Cooling off period of four years will apply to seek fresh election to either post. iii. The President, the Secretary and the Treasurer of any recognised National Sports Federation, including the Indian Olympic Association, shall cease to hold that post on attaining the age of 70 years. iv. The other provisions in respect of the tenure limit as contained in the letter of 1975 mentioned above shall remain as it is. iii. The President, the Secretary and the Treasurer of any recognised National Sports Federation, including the Indian Olympic Association, shall cease to hold that post on attaining the age of 70 years. iv. The other provisions in respect of the tenure limit as contained in the letter of 1975 mentioned above shall remain as it is. v. The above dispensation will come into operation with immediate effect." This regulation (subject to any subsequent amendments) should, till appropriate legislation is framed by Parliament, bind the parties and all NSFs as a condition for recognition, aid and crucially, for the use of the term "India" by any team in International Olympic sporting event." A reading of the said decision would show that since the usage of the word "India" suggests patronage of Government of India, except the National Sports Federation, no other sports body can use the word. The usage of the said word will certainly mislead the players as if the federation which is using the word "India" is a recognised National Sports Federation for Chess by the Government of India. Hence, I am not inclined to accept the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the defendants to the effect that the National Sports Code does not have any mandatory force and effect and it does not prohibit the defendants from using the word "India". 16. Further, it is the case of the plaintiff that they are entitled for the remedies under passing off. According to the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff, by using the name which is similar or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's name, the second defendant and his coterie of inter-meddlers had created confusion in the minds of the players as if the first defendant is also a National Sports Federation like that of the plaintiff. But, it is the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the defendants that since the present case does not relate to infringement of any trade mark, the question of passing off does not arise. However, I am of the opinion, though the plaintiff is not trading the goods in the market and they are merely rendering services, they are entitled for remedies on the ground of passing off. However, I am of the opinion, though the plaintiff is not trading the goods in the market and they are merely rendering services, they are entitled for remedies on the ground of passing off. In this regard, a reliance could be placed in the judgment reported in 2006 (33) PTC 79 (Bom) - International Association of Lions Clubs v. National Association of Indian Lions & Ors, wherein it has been held as follows:- " 9. In the light of the aforesaid judgments, it is not possible to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the defendants that the plaintiffs are entitled to an injunction on the basis of a passing off only if they are carrying on business in relation to goods and not in relation to services. In my opinion, the plaintiffs are entitled to the injunction of passing off even if the plaintiffs are not trading in the goods in the market and are merely rendering services. I am also of the further opinion that the plaintiffs are distributing the goods such as calendars, dairies, booklets, etc. and while doing so they are using the mark Lion, Lioness, Leo or Leos and emblem. Merely because they are not doing so for profit does not mean that the plaintiffs are not entitled to protect their mark and this emblem. In that light of the matter, the contention of the learned counsel for the defendants that the plaintiffs are not entitled to injunction by virtue of the fact that the plaintiffs are not trading in goods cannot be accepted and accordingly, the same is rejected." The dictum laid down in the above judgment would show that the plaintiff is entitled for remedies on the ground of passing off even if the plaintiffs are not trading in the goods in the market and are merely rendering services. But, however, in order to establish the case of passing off, the plaintiff has to satisfy three tests as per the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Laxmikant V. Patel v. Chetanbhai Shah reported in (2002) 3 SCC 65 , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:- "12. But, however, in order to establish the case of passing off, the plaintiff has to satisfy three tests as per the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Laxmikant V. Patel v. Chetanbhai Shah reported in (2002) 3 SCC 65 , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:- "12. In Oertil v. Bowmen (at p.397) the gist of passing off action was defined by stating that it was essential to the success of any claim to passing off on the use of given mark or get up that the plaintiff should be able to show that the disputed mark or get up has become by user in the country distinctive of the plaintiff's goods so that the use in relation to any goods of the kind dealt in by the plaintiff of that mark or get up will be understood by the trade and the public in that country as meaning that the goods are the plaintiff's goods. It is in the nature of acquisition of a quasi-proprietary right to the exclusive use of the mark or get up in relation to goods of that kind because of the plaintiff having used or made it known that the mark or get up has relation to his goods. Such right is invaded by anyone using the same or some deceptively similar mark, get up or name in relation to goods not of the plaintiff. The three elements of passing-off are the reputation of goods, possibility of deception and likelihood of damages to the plaintiff. In our opinion, the same principle, which applies to trade mark, is applicable to trade name." From the dictum laid down in the above judgment, it could be seen that the plaintiff must satisfy the following conditions viz., (i) the goods or services provided by the plaintiff must have good will and reputation in the jurisdiction of the claim; (ii) the defendants are using the name which deceptively similar to the plaintiff's name; (iii) the defendants' usage of the name will cause or likely to cause damage to the plaintiff's good will and reputation. In the instant case, I find that the plaintiff began their operations in 1950 and was registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 on 12.12.1958 and the plaintiff is the only organisation in India to be affiliated with the Federation Internationale Des Echecs. In the instant case, I find that the plaintiff began their operations in 1950 and was registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 on 12.12.1958 and the plaintiff is the only organisation in India to be affiliated with the Federation Internationale Des Echecs. The plaintiff has also been recognised by the Government of India as the National Chess Federation from its inception. After the implementation of the National Sports Code by the Ministry of Sports and Youth Affairs, the Government of India has certified the plaintiff vide its order dated 14.1.2010, as the National Sports Federation for Chess for the year 2010 and subsequently, for each successive years. The plaintiff also avails financial assistance from the Government in implementing its various schemes aimed at developing the sports in India. The plaintiff has also requested to take into account the various schemes wherein the Government has provided employment and educational opportunities for chess players has been channelized, organised and monitored by the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff is responsible for regulation and development of the game of chess in India. The Government had also declared that all National Sport Federations are Public Authority vide its notification F.No.36/2-2010-SP II dated 30.3.2010. Therefore, all these factual aspects would show that the plaintiff is enjoying good will and reputation. In this regard, yet another reference could be placed in the judgment reported in (2004) 6 SCC 145 - Satyam Infoway Ltd. v. Sifynet Solutions, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:- "12. ... Consequently a domain name as an address must, of necessity, be peculiar and unique and where a domain name is used in connection with a business, the value of maintaining an exclusive identity becomes critical. As more and more commercial enterprises trade or advertise their presence on the web, domain name have become more and more valuable and the potential for dispute is high. .. The facts that many consumers searching for a particular site are likely, in the first place, to try and guess its domain name has further enhanced this value. The answer to the question posed in the preceding paragraph is therefore an affirmative." The first defendant's domain name "Chess Association of India" is very similar to the plaintiff's name All India Chess Federation. The answer to the question posed in the preceding paragraph is therefore an affirmative." The first defendant's domain name "Chess Association of India" is very similar to the plaintiff's name All India Chess Federation. The two crucial words "Chess" and "India" are common and the word "Association" could be construed as members of a federation, which is the plaintiff's organisation. Hence, when the general public conducts a search on the internet using the word Chess and India, which denotes a National Sports Federation, the players and the general public may connect with the first defendant. Therefore, I am of the opinion, the usage of the word "India" will certainly create an impression in the minds of the players that the first defendant is a National Sports Federation. Hence, the defendants are not entitled to use the name "India" without the permission of the Government of India. 17. Point No.(ii):- With regard to jurisdiction, it is the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff that the plaintiff has earlier filed a suit in C.S.No.52 of 2005 as against one P.T.Ummer Koya, the then Secretary from holding any post in the plaintiff and in the said suit, an order of interim injunction was granted on 31.1.2005. Even after that, the said P.T.Ummer Koya and his supports interfered with the administration of the plaintiff. Hence, the three founder members of the plaintiff viz., the State Chess Associations of Tamilnadu, Maharashtra and Delhi instituted another suit in C.S.No.211 of 2005 before this Court as against the said P.T.Ummer Koya, S.L.Harsh, the second defendant herein and others for permanent injunction restraining them from interfering with the affairs of the plaintiff until they are absolved of their charges of misfeasance and malfeasance. In the said suit, an order of interim injunction was passed on 7.3.2005. On 13.11.2005, on due consideration of the misfeasance and malfeasance committed by the said P.T.Ummer Koya, S.L.Harsh, the second defendant and other associates, the General Body of the plaintiff authorised the Secretary to initiate appropriate civil and criminal proceedings against them for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,11,12,831/- and for recovery of the records and other articles movable and immovables of the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff had filed a suit in C.S.No.396 of 2007 on the file of this Court. Hence, the plaintiff had filed a suit in C.S.No.396 of 2007 on the file of this Court. Therefore, according to the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff, since the second defendant was restrained from interfering with the day to day affairs of the plaintiff, now the second defendant intends to interfere with the plaintiff's management indirectly by forming the first defendant association in similar to the name of the plaintiff association only in order to interfere with the smooth running of the plaintiff. Hence, the order passed in C.S.Nos.52 and 211 of 2005 would be of critical part of cause of action for the present suit that arises within the jurisdiction of this Court at Chennai. But, it is the reply of the learned counsel appearing for the defendants that the issue involved in the said suits are in no way relevant or connected to the present suit. The suit in C.S.No.211 of 2005 was filed by the State Chess Associations and not by the plaintiff and the first defendant was not a party to the said suit. The present suit has been filed to prevent the first defendant from using the words "India" or "Indian". The issue involved in the present suit has nothing to do with the subject matter of the earlier suits. Therefore, pendency of the said suits before this Court cannot an integral part of the cause action for the present suit. But, I find that the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff within the jurisdiction of this Court solely not based on the pendency of the earlier suits alone. According to the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff, the defendants are advertising and announcing that they would be organising all India level biggest ever prize fund chess tournament in Delhi in their website, which is accessible and viewed all over India including Chennai, Tamil Nadu. The website contains the information of the defendants association and it is also an interactive one. It contains materials such as Registration Form and Registration Renewal Forms and Contact Forms which can be down loaded by the Chess players from anywhere in India including Chennai, Tamilnadu. In fact, if the players from Chennai have mistakenly participated in the unauthorised tournaments conducted by the first defendant, the deception had occurred within the jurisdiction of this Court. It contains materials such as Registration Form and Registration Renewal Forms and Contact Forms which can be down loaded by the Chess players from anywhere in India including Chennai, Tamilnadu. In fact, if the players from Chennai have mistakenly participated in the unauthorised tournaments conducted by the first defendant, the deception had occurred within the jurisdiction of this Court. Therefore, this Court has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain this suit irrespective of the location of the office of the first defendant. In this regard, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff has also produced various letters of undertaking and apology given by the players for having participated in the tournaments conducted by the first defendant by mistakenly understanding from the website that the first defendant is a National Sports Federation. The apology letters of the players produced by the plaintiff would show that the defendants' website is an interactive website. The said website is accessible at Chennai and some of the players have also been misled by the website of the defendants. The apology letters of some of the players would show the misleading made by the website of the defendants. Since the deception took place within the jurisdiction of this Court, I am of the opinion, even though the pendency of the suits would not constitute the jurisdiction, since the defendants' website is an interactive one and the players at Chennai can down load the Registration Form and Registration Renewal Forms and Contact Forms, this Court will have a jurisdiction. In this regard, a reference could be placed in the judgment reported in (2007) 11 SCC 335 - Alchemist v. State Bank of Sikkim, wherein, it has been held as follows:- " 37. From the aforesaid discussion keeping in view the ratio laid down in a catena of decisions by this Court, it is clear that for the purpose of deciding whether facts averred by the appellant-petitioner would or would not constitute a part of cause of action, one has to consider whether such fact constitutes material, essential or integral part of the cause of action. It is no doubt true that even if a small fraction of the cause of action arises within the jurisdiction of the court, the court would have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit / petition. It is no doubt true that even if a small fraction of the cause of action arises within the jurisdiction of the court, the court would have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit / petition. Nevertheless it must be a ' part of cause of action ' nothing less than that." A reading of the dictum laid down in the above judgment would show that even if a small fraction of the cause of action arises within the jurisdiction of this Court, this Court will have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit / petition. But, learned counsel appearing for the defendants has relied upon the judgment reported in MANU/DE/ 3072/2009 : 2010 (42) PTC 361 (Del) to show that a mere hosting of a website which can be accessible from anyone is not sufficient for the purpose of filing the suit. From the dictum laid down in the said judgment, it could be seen that if the website is not an interactive one, then a mere hosting of the website will not give a cause of action. In the instant case, it is an interactive website and the players at Chennai and others can down load the Registration Form and Registration Renewal Forms and Contact Forms. Therefore, this Court will have a jurisdiction to entertain the suit. 18. Point No.(iii):- It is the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the defendants that the Competition Commission of India has initiated action against the plaintiff based on the complaints given by some of the players. But, the proceedings of the Competition Commission were completely suppressed by the plaintiff in their plaint. But, it is the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff that since some of the players have participated the events conducted by the first defendant, the plaintiff had initiated action against those players. The said players approached the High Court of Delhi by filing a writ petition and the High Court of Delhi directed them to approach the Competition Commission, India. But, the proceedings of the Competition Commissioner has now been stayed by this Court by an order dated 18.12.2012 in W.P.No.34039 of 2012. This fact is totally irrelevant to decide the issue involved in this case and the same would not amount to suppression of material facts. But, the proceedings of the Competition Commissioner has now been stayed by this Court by an order dated 18.12.2012 in W.P.No.34039 of 2012. This fact is totally irrelevant to decide the issue involved in this case and the same would not amount to suppression of material facts. Even in my considered opinion, only if any facts which are relevant to decide the issue involved are not mentioned, the same can be taken as suppression of materials facts. Here, the proceedings pending before the Competition Commission are totally irrelevant to decide the issue involved in the present suit viz., whether the plaintiff is entitled to use the name or domain name or website / URL, the words "India" or "Indian" or "National" and the non-mentioning of the proceedings pending before the Competition Commission would not amount to suppression of material facts. 19. Point No.(iv):- The next submission of the learned counsel appearing for the defendants is that the suit and application are hit by delay and laches. In this regard, it is the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the defendants that the first defendant was incorporated in the year 2009 and though the plaintiff was aware of such incorporation as early as in the year 2009, they have taken action only after a period of three years. But, on a perusal of the materials available on record, I find that even on 9.12.2009 itself, the plaintiff issued a caution notice to their players and members warning them that the first defendant association is not recognised by the Government of India and hence, participation in the tournaments conducted by them would not benefit the players. Subsequently, on 7.7.2010, the plaintiff issued another caution notice through its website stating that the first defendant association is not recognised by the Government of India. In addition to that, the plaintiff has objected to the usage of the first defendant association's name repeatedly through various legal notices. Finally, left with no other alternative, the plaintiff has filed the present suit. These facts have been explained in the plaint also. In this regard, a reference could be placed in the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff reported in 2009 (40) PTC 346 (Bom) - International Association of Lions Clubs v. Association of Lions India & Ors, wherein it has been held as follows:- "68. These facts have been explained in the plaint also. In this regard, a reference could be placed in the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff reported in 2009 (40) PTC 346 (Bom) - International Association of Lions Clubs v. Association of Lions India & Ors, wherein it has been held as follows:- "68. Indeed, it may appear that the plaintiffs did not move against the defendant No.1 after issuance of notice in August, 1993. That does not mean that continuation of the activity by the defendants in particular defendant No.1 has been condoned by the plaintiffs. The fact that the plaintiffs have been asserting their right of infringement of registered trade mark and / or action of passing off and infringement of copyright is obvious from the two suits filed by the plaintiffs against the other organisations during the relevant period. It may be that after the plaintiffs realised that the activities of the defendants in particular defendant No.1 were reaching threatening proportion the plaintiffs have approached this Court. In the first place, the fact that the plaintiffs have recently come across the activities of the defendants herein as stated in the plaint has remained uncontroverted as of now." Even in this case, the plaintiff has been repeatedly sending caution notices with regard to the usage of defendants' association name before filing the suit. In spite of the caution notice sent by the plaintiff, the defendants were continuing to use the word "India". Finally, left with no other alternative, the plaintiff has filed the present suit. Therefore, it is not correct to state that the plaintiff is not entitled for interim injunction on the ground of delay and laches. Therefore, I am not inclined to accept the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the defendants on the ground of delay and laches. 20. For all the reasons stated above, I am of the opinion that the balance of convenience is in favour of the plaintiff for passing an order of temporary injunction. If the words "India" or "Indian" or "National" are used by the defendants, that would mislead the players and hence, I am of the opinion, the plaintiff has established prima facie case for interim injunction. Therefore, as observed earlier, the plaintiffs are entitled to an order of interim injunction. 21. If the words "India" or "Indian" or "National" are used by the defendants, that would mislead the players and hence, I am of the opinion, the plaintiff has established prima facie case for interim injunction. Therefore, as observed earlier, the plaintiffs are entitled to an order of interim injunction. 21. In the result, the interim injunction already granted by this Court on 28.12.2012 in O.A.No.1078 of 2012 is made absolute and the application is ordered accordingly. Consequently, the application in A.No.1956 of 2013 seeking to revoke the leave granted by this Court in A.No.5615 of 2012 vide its order dated 27.12.2012 is dismissed since this Court has come to the conclusion that this Court has got jurisdiction to decide the issue involved in the suit. No costs.