The Supreme Court has referred to a larger Bench the question whether a Civil Judge (Senior Division), notified as a Commercial Court under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, can entertain trademark infringement suits despite Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 barring institution of such suits before a court inferior to a District Court. A Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran said the issue requires authoritative resolution in view of an apparent conflict in earlier decisions. The Court also stayed Commercial Suit No.11 of 2023 pending before the Civil Judge (Senior Division)-I, Jamshedpur.
Issue Before the Supreme Court
The appeal raised a narrow question concerning the interaction between Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act and the Commercial Courts Act.
Section 134 provides that specified suits relating to trademark infringement cannot be instituted before any court inferior to a District Court having jurisdiction to try the suit. The difficulty arose because, in Jharkhand, Civil Judges (Senior Division) have been notified as Commercial Courts under the Commercial Courts Act.
The Court was therefore required to consider whether such a notification could permit a trademark infringement suit to be instituted before a Civil Judge (Senior Division).
Appellants Say Section 134 Cannot Be Diluted
The appellants argued that Section 134 was intended to ensure that infringement and allied disputes under the Trade Marks Act are dealt with by District Courts.
They contended that permitting such suits before a Civil Judge (Senior Division) merely because that court has been designated as a Commercial Court would dilute the statutory mandate under the Trade Marks Act.
It was also argued that this arrangement would affect the appellate structure. An appeal from the Civil Judge (Senior Division) would lie to the District Court, while the High Court’s jurisdiction would largely be confined to revision or proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution, where re-appreciation of evidence would not be available in the same manner.
An intervener supporting the appellants submitted that the expression “having jurisdiction to try the suit” in Section 134(1) concerns territorial jurisdiction and does not alter the requirement that such suits be instituted before a District Court.
The appellants and the intervener also argued that the Trade Marks Act is a special legislation for such disputes, whereas the Commercial Courts Act covers a broader category of commercial disputes.
Respondents Rely on Commercial Courts Act
The respondents relied on Section 2(1)(c)(xvii) of the Commercial Courts Act, which specifically includes disputes concerning intellectual property rights, including registered and unregistered trademarks, within the definition of commercial disputes.
They submitted that the Commercial Courts Act is a subsequent special legislation intended for expeditious adjudication of commercial disputes. Reliance was also placed on Section 21, which gives the Act overriding effect over inconsistent provisions contained in other laws.
Supreme Court Examines Earlier Decisions
The Bench examined Kandla Export Corporation v. OCI Corporation, which dealt with the relationship between the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the Commercial Courts Act.
In that case, the Supreme Court had treated the Arbitration Act as a self-contained and exhaustive code in relation to arbitration matters and held that its appellate framework prevailed over the general provision in Section 13(1) of the Commercial Courts Act.
The Bench also referred to the Gujarat High Court decision in Fun N. Fud v. GLK Associates, authored by Justice Pardiwala when he was a judge of that High Court. The Gujarat High Court had held that an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act could be entertained only by the District Court having principal civil jurisdiction despite the notification of Civil Judges (Senior Division) as Commercial Courts.
The Court further considered Jaycee Housing Private Limited v. Registrar (General), Orissa High Court, where the Supreme Court had upheld the application of the Commercial Courts Act to proceedings under the Arbitration Act and noted the overriding effect of the later legislation.
Apparent Conflict Requires Larger Bench
The Bench noted that Jaycee Housing had held that Sections 9, 14 and 34 of the Arbitration Act had to yield, on the question of jurisdiction, to the Commercial Courts Act. Kandla Export Corporation, on the other hand, had treated the Arbitration Act as special legislation vis-a-vis the Commercial Courts Act.
Turning to trademark disputes, the Court observed that the Commercial Courts Act deals with a wider genus of commercial disputes, while intellectual property rights, including trademarks, form one species within that larger category.
The Bench further observed that Section 21 of the Commercial Courts Act gives overriding effect only where there is inconsistency with another law.
It said that Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, which requires certain suits to be instituted before a District Court and bars their institution before an inferior court, is not inherently inconsistent with the Commercial Courts Act because District Courts can themselves be notified as Commercial Courts.
The problem, according to the Bench, arises when Civil Judges are notified as Commercial Courts.
“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.”
Court Points to Pecuniary Jurisdiction Anomaly
The Supreme Court also highlighted the consequences of the pecuniary jurisdiction framework in Jharkhand.
Under the Commercial Courts Act, the specified value is not less than ₹3 lakh. In Jharkhand, the Civil Judge (Senior Division), notified as a Commercial Court, has jurisdiction over suits valued between ₹3 lakh and ₹1 crore.
The Court noted that this could result in a trademark suit valued below ₹3 lakh being instituted before a District Court under Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, while a suit carrying a higher valuation could be filed before a Civil Judge (Senior Division).
The Bench also referred to the position in Kerala, where a subsequent notification designated District Courts and Additional District Courts as Commercial Courts at the District Judge level for disputes arising under statutes including the Arbitration Act, Copyright Act, Trade Marks Act and Patents Act where the principal civil court of original jurisdiction was required to decide the dispute at the first instance.
Matter Sent to Larger Bench
The Supreme Court concluded that a larger Bench should resolve the conflict and settle the law uniformly across States instead of leaving jurisdiction dependent on different notifications issued in different States.
The Bench observed:
“In our humble view the legislative imprimatur cannot be diluted by the notifications issued by the High Courts.”
The matter has been directed to be placed before the Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders.
The Court also stayed Commercial Suit No.11 of 2023 pending before the Civil Judge (Senior Division)-I, Jamshedpur.
Case Details
Case Title: I.S.D.S. Private Limited & Anr. v. M/s Khemka Food Products Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. … of 2026 (@ Special Leave Petition (C) No.6793 of 2026)
Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
Date: September 21, 2026
