.jpeg){kind=small}
Case Snapshot
Case Name: I.S.D.S. Private Limited & Anr. v. M/s Khemka Food Products Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Citation: 2026 INSC 1024 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 6793 of 2026)
Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
Date of Judgment: September 21, 2026
Area of Law: Trade Marks Act, 1999; Commercial Courts Act, 2015; Jurisdiction
The Judgment in One Line
Supreme Court refers to larger Bench the question whether notification under Commercial Courts Act can dilute Section 134 of Trade Marks Act requiring suits to be filed before District Court.
Why this Judgement Matters
This reference order addresses a significant conflict between the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 regarding jurisdiction over trademark infringement suits. The core issue is whether a State notification constituting Civil Judge (Senior Division) as a Commercial Court can override Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, which prohibits suits before any court inferior to a District Court. The ruling will have far-reaching implications for intellectual property litigation across India, as it affects the forum for filing trademark suits and the availability of appeals to the High Court.
Background
The appellants challenged the jurisdiction of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jamshedpur, notified as a Commercial Court under the Commercial Courts Act, to entertain a trademark infringement suit. They argued that Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act mandates that suits for infringement be filed only before a District Court, and the notification dilutes this statutory mandate by allowing suits before a subordinate court. The respondent contended that the Commercial Courts Act, being a subsequent special legislation with overriding effect under Section 21, prevails over the Trade Marks Act. The High Court had declined to interfere, leading to the present appeal.
Issues Before the Court
Whether Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act restricts jurisdiction to District Court only.
Whether the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 can override Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act.
Whether notification under Commercial Courts Act constituting Civil Judge (Senior Division) as Commercial Court is valid for trademark suits.
Whether conflict exists between decisions in Kandla Export Corporation and Jaycee Housing Private Limited.
Whether the matter requires reference to a larger Bench.
What Did the Supreme Court Hold?
Conflict Between Two Enactments Identified
Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act prohibits institution of suits for infringement before any court inferior to a District Court.
The Commercial Courts Act permits High Courts to notify Civil Judge (Senior Division) as Commercial Courts.
In Jharkhand, the CJ (SD) has been notified as Commercial Court with pecuniary jurisdiction between ₹3 lakhs and ₹1 crore.
A suit valued below ₹3 lakhs must still go to District Court under Section 134, while higher value suits go to CJ (SD)—creating an anomaly.
Conflict Between Precedents
Kandla Export Corporation held that the Arbitration Act is a special legislation vis-à-vis the Commercial Courts Act, and Section 13(1) of the latter is a general provision.
Jaycee Housing Private Limited held that the Commercial Courts Act is a special enactment, and Section 9, 14 and 34 of the Arbitration Act must concede jurisdiction to it.
The Court found these decisions appear to conflict and require resolution by a larger Bench.
Trade Marks Act vs Commercial Courts Act
The Commercial Courts Act deals with the genus of commercial disputes under Section 2(1)(c).
Intellectual property rights, including trademarks, is only a species under Section 2(1)(c)(xvii).
The Trade Marks Act is a special legislation conferring exclusive jurisdiction on District Court.
Section 21 of the Commercial Courts Act gives overriding effect only when there is inconsistency.
When another special enactment confers jurisdiction on District Court, it is not inconsistent with the Commercial Courts Act permitting notification of District Courts as Commercial Courts.
The problem arises only when Civil Judges are notified as Commercial Courts.
Reference to Larger Bench
The Court referred the matter to a larger Bench for resolving the conflict and settling uniform law across States.
The legislative imprimatur cannot be diluted by notifications issued by High Courts.
The Commercial Suit pending before CJ (SD)-I, Jamshedpur was stayed.
Key Legal Principles
Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act confers exclusive jurisdiction on District Court for infringement suits.
The Commercial Courts Act is a subsequent legislation with overriding effect under Section 21 only when inconsistency exists.
A special enactment conferring jurisdiction on District Court is not inconsistent with the Commercial Courts Act permitting District Court notification.
The conflict arises when Civil Judges are notified as Commercial Courts for trademark suits.
Judicial precedents of coordinate Benches must be reconciled; conflicting views require larger Bench resolution.
Legislative mandate cannot be diluted by High Court notifications.
Uniformity in law across States is essential for effective administration of justice.
Important Precedents
Kandla Export Corporation v. OCI Corporation – Held Arbitration Act is special legislation; Section 13(1) of Commercial Courts Act is general provision.
Jaycee Housing Private Limited v. Registrar (General), Orissa High Court – Held Commercial Courts Act is special enactment; Arbitration Act provisions must concede jurisdiction.
Fun N. Fud v. GLK Associates (Gujarat High Court) – Held application under Section 9 of Arbitration Act lies only before District Court, not CJ (SD) notified as Commercial Court.
Practical Impact
For Advocates: This reference order creates uncertainty regarding the proper forum for trademark infringement suits in States where Civil Judges are notified as Commercial Courts. Until the larger Bench decides, practitioners must assess jurisdiction carefully.
For Future Litigation: The ruling will determine whether trademark suits must be filed before District Court or can be filed before Civil Judge (SD) as Commercial Court.
For Litigants: The forum affects the availability of appeals—District Court orders are appealable to High Court, while CJ (SD) orders may only be subject to revision under Article 227.
Lawcurb Quick Insight
The Court identified a practical anomaly: in Jharkhand, a trademark suit valued below ₹3 lakhs must go to District Court under Section 134, while a suit valued above ₹3 lakhs goes to CJ (SD) as Commercial Court. This inconsistency underscores the need for uniform law.
Lawcurb Practice Note
Advocates should: (i) verify the notification applicable in their State; (ii) assess whether the suit value falls within CJ (SD) or District Court pecuniary jurisdiction; (iii) note that the matter is pending before a larger Bench; and (iv) consider filing before District Court to preserve appellate remedies.
Remember this Ratio
The conflict between Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act and notifications under the Commercial Courts Act requires resolution by a larger Bench.
Final Outcome
Civil Appeal disposed of with reference to larger Bench.
Conflict between Kandla Export Corporation and Jaycee Housing Private Limited referred for resolution.
Question of validity of notification constituting CJ (SD) as Commercial Court for trademark suits referred.
Commercial Suit No. 11 of 2023 pending before CJ (SD)-I, Jamshedpur stayed.
Matter to be placed before Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders.
Lawcurb Verdict
This reference order highlights a significant jurisdictional conflict affecting trademark litigation across India. By referring the matter to a larger Bench, the Supreme Court ensures that the law is settled uniformly and the legislative mandate of Section 134 is not diluted by inconsistent notifications. The outcome will determine the proper forum for trademark suits and the availability of appellate remedies. A critical development in intellectual property litigation.
Exam Lens
Question 1: What is the scope of Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999?
Answer: Section 134(1) of the Trade Marks Act confers jurisdiction for infringement suits on the District Court having jurisdiction to try the suit. The proviso prohibits institution of suits before any court inferior to a District Court. This is a special provision conferring exclusive jurisdiction on District Court.
Question 2: Can the Commercial Courts Act override the Trade Marks Act?
Answer: The Commercial Courts Act, 2015 is a subsequent legislation with overriding effect under Section 21 only when there is inconsistency. The Supreme Court observed that when a special enactment like the Trade Marks Act confers jurisdiction on District Court, it is not inconsistent with the Commercial Courts Act permitting notification of District Courts as Commercial Courts. The problem arises when Civil Judges are notified as Commercial Courts.
Question 3: Why did the Supreme Court refer the matter to a larger Bench?
Answer: The Court identified a conflict between Kandla Export Corporation and Jaycee Housing Private Limited regarding whether the Arbitration Act or the Commercial Courts Act is the special legislation. The Court also found an anomaly in Jharkhand where suits below ₹3 lakhs go to District Court while higher value suits go to CJ (SD). To resolve the conflict and settle uniform law, the matter was referred to a larger Bench.
This report is prepared by Lawcurb for educational and informational purposes only. It is a concise summary of the judgment and should not be construed as legal advice. Readers are encouraged to refer to the original judgment before relying on any legal proposition.