Registrar Of Trade Marks Can Be Treated As Subordinate To High Court For Transfer Of Rectification Proceedings U/S 24 CPC: Bombay High Court

The Court further held that the power to transfer and consolidate the rectification proceedings is referable not merely to Section 24 CPC, but also to the inherent power of the High Court clarified under Section 151 CPC.

The Court additionally held that the absence of procedural rules of this Court dealing with intellectual property rights litigation, unlike the Delhi High Court's Intellectual Property Rights Rules, cannot render the substantive power conferred by Section 24 of the CPC incapable of being put to use.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan observed, “…As a tribunal with serious trappings of a Court of the first instance, read with the High Court being the Appellate Court before which the statutory right to appeal from its decisions may be exercised, the Registrar, in my judgement can truly be regarded as a subordinate Court for purposes of Section 24 of the CPC”.

Advocate Aseem Naphade appeared for the applicant, while Advocate Hiren Kamod appeared for the contesting respondent.

The matter arose from an Interim Application filed by the Institute for Technology and Management Trust (ITM) seeking transfer of three rectification proceedings pending before the Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai, to the Bombay High Court, so that they could be heard along with a pending Commercial IP Suit of 2015 and 17 connected rectification proceedings filed by Samata Lok Sansthan Trust.

ITM contended that consolidation of all proceedings was necessary to avoid conflicting outcomes, as the disputes involved the same parties and overlapping issues. The respondent opposed the application, arguing that the Registrar was not a “Court” subordinate to the High Court under Section 24 CPC and that the transfer application was procedurally misconceived.

Rejecting the objection, the Bench held that the Registrar of Trade Marks can be regarded as a Court for the limited purpose of Section 24 CPC, considering the powers conferred under Section 127 of the Trade Marks Act, including receiving evidence, enforcing attendance of witnesses, compelling production of documents, awarding costs and reviewing decisions. The Court held that whether a forum qualifies as a “Court” depends on the context and legislative purpose, and not on a universal rule.

“…I am unable to agree that the Registrar would be regarded as a forum that can never ever be regarded as a Court for any policy purpose whatsoever. On the contrary, to consider the context and legislative policy purpose, one must examine if the Registrar has been conferred a jurisdiction that gives it the trappings of a court for purposes of the legislation by which it is created (TM Act) and then consider the purposes for which the provision under consideration is to be applied (Section 24 of the CPC)”, the Bench observed.

The Court observed that the Registrar exercises concurrent jurisdiction with the High Court under Sections 47 and 57 of the Trade Marks Act in rectification proceedings, and orders passed by the Registrar are appealable before the High Court under Section 91.

“…Quite contrary to the anomaly of treating a non-Court forum as a Court to enable it to exercise powers not expressly conferred, such a reading would create an anomaly whereby the High Court would be regarded as being denuded of its inherent power to transfer and consolidate deeply inter-connected and inextricably inter-woven proceedings to itself, despite the provisions of Section 24 of the CPC read with Section 151 of the CPC”, the Bench further observed.

Distinguishing the decisions in Anglo French, Promoshirt, Khoday and Sakura, the Court held that those rulings arose in different contexts and did not lay down an absolute proposition that the Registrar could never be treated as a Court.

Allowing the application, the Court directed transfer of the three pending rectification proceedings from the Registrar to the High Court and ordered that they be clubbed with the existing Suit and 17 connected rectification proceedings for consolidated adjudication.

All the tagged proceedings were stood over to August 18, 2026.

Cause Title: Institute For Technology And Management Trust And Anr. v. Putch Venkata Ramana & Ors. Interim Application No. 3128 Of 2025

Appearances:

Applicant/Petitioner: Advocates Hiren Kamod, Nishad Nadkarni, Aasif Navodia, Khushboo Jhunjhunwala, Jaanvi Chopra, Rakshita Singh i/b Khaitan and Co.

Applicant in IA/3128/2025: Advocate Aseem Naphade, Bharati Aindley, Shashank Sardesai, Anoushka Goyal, Aniket Bomble.

Click here to read/download the Judgment