The Supreme Court has referred to the larger Bench the issue of whether the restriction contained under Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 to institute a suit for infringement before any Court inferior to a District Court having jurisdiction to try the suit would be rendered otiose by the notification issued under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, by certain States notifying the Civil Judge (Senior Division) as a Commercial Court.

The matter before the Apex Court pertained to a Commercial Suit.

The Division Bench of Justice J. B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran held, “We are of the opinion that the matter has to be referred to the Larger Bench for resolving the conflict and also settling the law to be uniform throughout the States and the jurisdiction not to be left to the different notifications issued in the various States. In our humble view the legislative imprimatur cannot be diluted by the notifications issued by the High Courts”

Advocate Singh Nishant Sanjay Kumar represented the Petitioner while Advocate Indrajit Sinha represented the Respondent.

Reasoning

On a perusal of some precedents, the Bench noted that in Jaycee Housing Private Limited and Ors. v. Registrar (General), Orissa High Court and Ors. (2023), it was held that Sections 9, 14 and 34 have to concede, insofar as jurisdiction is concerned, to the Commercial Courts Act, finding it to be a special enactment as is the case with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Reference was also made to Kandla Export Corporation and Anr. v. OCI Corporation and Anr. (2018) wherein it was observed that the Arbitration Act is a code unto itself and vis-a-vis the Commercial Courts Act, the former is a special legislation, and the latter is a general legislation.

The Bench explained that the constitution of commercial courts as per Section 3 empowers the High Courts to notify the constitution of Commercial Courts at the District Level, which includes the Higher Judiciary, comprising of the District Courts. “Section 21 gives overriding effect to that statute only when there is anything inconsistent in any other law for the time being in force. Hence when another special enactment like the Trade Marks Act confers jurisdiction on the District Court by prohibiting institution of suits for specified reliefs in any Court inferior to that of a District Judge, it is not inconsistent with the Commercial Courts Act, which permits the High Courts to notify as Commercial Courts the Courts of District Judges also.

The Bench found that the problem occurs only when the notification, constitutes Civil Judges as Commercial Courts. “The apparent conflict in the two decisions, according to us, needs to be looked into by a larger bench”, it stated.

The Bench further noticed that in some States, like the State of Kerala, initially the CJ(SD) was notified as the Commercial Court for suits having valuation above Rs.3 lakhs. Later, under Section 3(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act the pecuniary value for suits before CJ(SD) (termed as Subordinate Judge’s Court in that State) notified as Commercial Courts, was enhanced to Rs.10 lakhs.

The Bench also took note of the fact that reckoning the anomaly as coming out from the two enactments a subsequent notification was brought out under Section 3, designating all District Courts and the Additional District Courts as Commercial Courts at the District Judge level for the purpose of exercising jurisdiction and powers conferred under the Commercial Courts Act to deal with those commercial disputes arising under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Copyright Act, 1957, the Trademarks Act, 1999, the Patents Act, 1970 and any other statute where the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in a district has to adjudicate the disputes arising therefrom at the first instance.

Taking such aspects into consideration, the Bench held that the matter has to be referred to the Larger Bench for resolving the conflict and also settling the law to be uniform throughout the States.

Cause Title: I.S.D.S. Private Limited & Anr. v. M/s Khemka Food Products Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. (Case No.:SLP (C) No.6793 of 2026)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocate Singh Nishant Sanjay Kumar, AOR Vishal Arun Mishra, Advocate Rupali Panwar

Respondent: Advocates Indrajit Sinha, Prerna Jhunjhunwala, Neeharika Mazumdar, Ankit Rajgarhia, AOR Aakash Nandolia, Advocates Sachin Dubey, Vinita Sejwal, AOR B. Shravanth Shanke

Click here to read/download Order


Justice JB PardiwalaJustice K. Vinod Chandran

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.