Authority: Supreme Court of India, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction

Order Date: September 21, 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Appellants – I.S.D.S. Private Limited & Anr.; Respondents – M/s Khemka Food Products Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
  • Core Question: Whether the restriction under Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999—mandating that infringement suits be instituted before a District Court—becomes otiose when a State (Jharkhand) notifies a Civil Judge (Senior Division) as a Commercial Court under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
  • Appellants’ Argument: Section 134 was intended to keep trademark infringement matters within District Courts; the Jharkhand notification forces suits to be filed before CJ(SD) with only a limited appeal route to the District Court, depriving litigants of a High Court appeal and limiting re‑appreciation of evidence.
  • Intervener’s Support: The phrase “having jurisdiction to try the suit” refers to territorial jurisdiction and should not dilute the exclusive District Court jurisdiction conferred by the Trade Marks Act; the Commercial Courts Act is a general law, whereas the Trade Marks Act is special legislation.
  • Respondents’ Argument: Section 2(1)(c)(xvii) of the Commercial Courts Act includes IP rights; being a subsequent special legislation, its non‑obstante provision (Section 21) gives it overriding effect over the earlier Trade Marks Act.
  • Cited Precedents:
  • Kandla Export Corp. v. OCI Corp. (2018) 14 SCC 715: Discussed interplay of Arbitration Act and Commercial Courts Act; Section 13(1) of the Commercial Courts Act is general, but special provisions of the Arbitration Act prevail where they exist.
  • Fun N. Fud v. GLK Associates (2019 SCC Online Guj 4236): Held that applications under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act must be filed before the District Court, not a CJ(SD) notified as a Commercial Court.
  • Jaycee Housing Pvt. Ltd. v. Registrar (General), Orissa High Court (2023) 1 SCC 549: Emphasised that the later Commercial Courts Act overrides inconsistent earlier statutes; all suits/applications of specified value must be transferred to Commercial Courts, and Section 21 gives it overriding effect.
  • Statutory Observations:
  • Section 3 of the Commercial Courts Act allows High Courts to notify District Courts as Commercial Courts, conferring pecuniary jurisdiction of at least Rs 3 lakhs up to Rs 1 crore.
  • In Jharkhand, a suit valued below Rs 3 lakhs would still need to be filed before a District Court per Section 134, while suits above Rs 3 lakhs would go to CJ(SD).
  • Kerala initially set the threshold at Rs 3 lakhs for CJ(SD) but later raised it to Rs 10 lakhs under Section 3(1A), subsequently designating all District and Additional District Courts as Commercial Courts for matters under the Arbitration Act, Copyright Act, Trade Marks Act, Patents Act, etc.
  • Court’s View: The conflict between the special Trade Marks Act and the general Commercial Courts Act, especially when notifications elevate CJ(SD) to Commercial Courts, requires resolution by a larger bench to ensure uniformity across States. Legislative intent cannot be diluted by High Court notifications.

Final Outcome

  • The Court stayed Commercial Suit No. 11 of 2023 pending before CJ (SD) – I, Jamshedpur.
  • Directed that the matter be placed before the Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders and referral to a larger bench to settle the jurisdictional conflict uniformly.

Topics: Trade Marks Jurisdiction, Commercial Courts Act, Supreme Court Order