The Supreme Court of India has referred a critical legal question to a Larger Bench: Can a High Court notification designating a Civil Judge (Senior Division) as a Commercial Court allow that court to hear trademark infringement suits, despite Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 barring any court inferior to a District Court from entertaining such matters? The reference highlights an apparent conflict between two coordinate bench rulings (Kandla Export vs. Jaycee Housing) on whether the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 overrides prior special enactments.
Case Name: I.S.D.S. Private Limited & Anr. v. M/s Khemka Food Products Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Bench & Panel: Division Bench — Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
Court: Supreme Court of India (Appellate Jurisdiction)
Date of Reference: September 21, 2026
Appellants’ Representation: Mr. Singh Nishant Sajay Kumar (Advocate) with Mr. Vishal Arun Mishra (Advocate-on-Record)
Respondents’ Representation: Mr. Indrajit Sinha with Ms. Prerna Jhunjhunwala, Ms. Neeharika Mazumdar, Mr. Ankit Rajgarhia, Mr. Aakash Nandolia (Advocate-on-Record), Mr. Sachin Dubey, Ms. Vinita Sejwal, and Mr. Naman Sondhi (Advocates)
Intervenors’ Representation: Mr. Abhishek Kumar Rao, Mr. Vinay P. Tripathi, Mr. Aagam Shah, Mr. Jayendra M. Modi, Mr. Shailesh Suman, Ms. Preeti Shukla with Mr. B. Shravanth Shanker (Advocate-on-Record)
Key Parties & Statutory Framework
- Appellants: I.S.D.S. Private Limited & Anr. (Challenged the territorial/hierarchical jurisdiction of the Civil Judge, Senior Division).
- Respondents: M/s Khemka Food Products Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. (Initiated the commercial/trademark suit).
- Relevant Statutes in Conflict:
- Section 134, Trade Marks Act, 1999: Explicitly mandates that no suit for infringement of a registered trademark or relating to any right in a registered trademark shall be instituted in any court inferior to a District Court.
- Commercial Courts Act, 2015: Allows High Courts to issue administrative notifications designating courts at the level of Civil Judge (Senior Division) as Commercial Courts for handling commercial disputes of specified value.
Main Issue
When a High Court issues a notification turning a lower court (Civil Judge, Senior Division) into a “Commercial Court,” does that lower court get the power to hear trademark infringement cases, even though the Trade Marks Act specifically says such cases can only be filed in a District Court or higher?
Core Conflict & Legal Background
- Origin of the Dispute: A commercial suit involving trademark infringement was instituted before a Civil Judge (Senior Division) in Jharkhand. The Civil Judge was designated as a Commercial Court pursuant to a notification issued by the Jharkhand High Court under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
- Jurisdictional Challenge: The appellants contended that under Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, a Civil Judge (Senior Division)—being hierarchically inferior to a District Court—has zero jurisdiction to entertain a trademark suit, irrespective of any High Court notification under the Commercial Courts Act.
- The Apparent Supreme Court Split: The Division Bench observed that two prior Supreme Court judgments expressed conflicting views on how the Commercial Courts Act interacts with specialized statutes:
Key Observations of the Division Bench
- Preserving Legislative Intent: The Court emphasized that administrative or judicial notifications issued by High Courts cannot dilute the express mandate of Parliament (“legislative imprimatur”) contained in Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act.
- Need for Uniformity: The Bench noted that jurisdictional rules for IP disputes should not be left to varying State-by-State notifications issued by different High Courts, which causes systemic inconsistency across India.
- Reference to Chief Justice: The Bench directed the Registry to place the matter before the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India (CJI) for constitution of an appropriate Larger Bench to resolve the conflict between Kandla Export and Jaycee Housing.
Key Legal Concepts Simplified
- Inferior Court Bar (Section 134, Trade Marks Act): A statutory rule designed to ensure that complex intellectual property matters (trademarks) are adjudicated exclusively by senior judges (District Judges) rather than subordinate trial courts.
- Implied Repeal / Overriding Effect: The judicial principle determining whether a newer general law (e.g., Commercial Courts Act, 2015) implicitly overrides or alters the jurisdictional mandates of an older specific law (e.g., Trade Marks Act, 1999).
- Reference to Larger Bench: When a Division Bench (2 judges) finds that two earlier decisions of equal bench strength conflict with each other, it cannot overrule them directly; it must refer the question to the Chief Justice to setup a 3-judge or 5-judge Bench for an authoritative ruling.
Outcome & Status
- Status: Referred to a Larger Bench by order dated September 21, 2026.
- Pending Action: Awaiting assignment and constitution of the Larger Bench by the Chief Justice of India to lay down a definitive, nationwide rule on whether notified subordinate commercial courts possess jurisdiction over trademark suits.