Supreme court refers to larger bench conflict between section 134 of trade marks act and commercial courts notifications designating civil judges (senior division)

Supreme Court refers the conflict between Section 134 of the Trademarks Act and commercial court notifications designating civil judges (senior division) to a larger bench for resolution.

Case Title: I.S.D.S. Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. Khemka Food Products Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

Coram: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran

Citation: (2026) ibclaw.in 643 SC (Special Leave Petition (C) No. 6793 of 2026, decided on 21 September 2026)

The Supreme Court has referred to a larger Bench the question whether the restriction in Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which bars institution of an infringement suit before any court inferior to a District Court, is rendered otiose by notifications under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 designating the Civil Judge (Senior Division) as a Commercial Court. Noting an apparent conflict between two decisions, the Bench directed that the matter be placed before the Chief Justice of India.

Leave was granted. The only question before the Court was whether the State of Jharkhand's notification, which notifies the Civil Judge (Senior Division) as a Commercial Court, dilutes the restriction contained in Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act.

The appellants submitted that the intention of Section 134 was to ensure that infringement and like issues under the Trade Marks Act are dealt with by a District Court. In Jharkhand, a suit under Section 134 would now have to be instituted before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), with an appeal to the District Court under the Commercial Courts Act. The litigant would have no appeal to the High Court, whose jurisdiction would be confined to revision or a challenge under Article 227, where re-appreciation of evidence is not possible. The intervener supported the appellants and submitted that the expression "having jurisdiction to try the suit" in Section 134(1) refers to territorial jurisdiction. It was argued that the Trade Marks Act is special legislation and the Commercial Courts Act is general legislation.

The respondents relied on Section 2(1)(c)(xvii) of the Commercial Courts Act, which covers intellectual property rights relating to registered and unregistered trade marks. They submitted that the Commercial Courts Act is a later special legislation enacted for expeditious adjudication of commercial disputes, and that Section 21, a non obstante provision, gives it overriding effect over inconsistent provisions in earlier enactments.

The Court first noticed Kandla Export Corporation and Anr. v. OCI Corporation and Anr. That case concerned whether an appeal not maintainable under Section 50 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 would still lie under Section 13(1) of the Commercial Courts Act. It was held that Section 13(1) is a general provision vis-a-vis arbitrations and that the Arbitration Act is a self-contained and exhaustive code on matters pertaining to arbitration.

The Court next noticed the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Fun N. Fud v. GLK Associates, which was authored by Justice Pardiwala. There, a Division Bench held that, where the Civil Judge (Senior Division) is notified as a Commercial Court, an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act is to be entertained only by the District Court having principal civil jurisdiction, in view of the narrowing down of the definition of "Court" in the Arbitration Act.

In Jaycee Housing Private Limited and Ors. v. Registrar (General), Orissa High Court and Ors., the challenge was to a notification of the State of Orissa constituting the Civil Judge (Senior Division) as Commercial Courts. The petitioners, who had initiated proceedings under Section 34, argued that it negated Section 2(1)(e) of the Arbitration Act. This Court held that Sections 9, 14 and 34 have to concede, insofar as jurisdiction is concerned, to the Commercial Courts Act, being a later enactment with overriding effect under Section 21. The Bench observed that Kandla Export, on the other hand, treated the Arbitration Act as a code unto itself and a special legislation vis-a-vis the Commercial Courts Act.

The Bench expressed its own view that the Commercial Courts Act deals with the genus of commercial disputes listed in Section 2(1)(c), of which intellectual property rights, including trade marks, are only a species. Section 3 empowers High Courts to notify Commercial Courts at the District level, which includes the District Courts. Section 21 overrides only what is inconsistent in other laws. Hence, when the Trade Marks Act confers jurisdiction on the District Court, it is not inconsistent with the Commercial Courts Act, which permits notification of the Courts of District Judges as Commercial Courts. The problem arises only when the notification constitutes Civil Judges as Commercial Courts.

The Court also pointed to the pecuniary anomaly. Section 3 prescribes a specified value of not less than three lakh rupees. In Jharkhand, the Civil Judge (Senior Division) has pecuniary jurisdiction between Rs. 3 lakh and Rs. 1 crore, so a suit valued below Rs. 3 lakh must still be instituted before the District Court under Section 134, while suits of higher value go to the Civil Judge (Senior Division).

The Court noted that in Kerala the Civil Judge (Senior Division) was initially notified as a Commercial Court for suits above Rs. 3 lakh, and the value was later raised to Rs. 10 lakh under Section 3(1A). A subsequent notification then designated all District Courts and Additional District Courts as Commercial Courts for disputes arising under the Arbitration Act, the Copyright Act, 1957, the Trade Marks Act, the Patents Act, 1970 and any other statute where the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction adjudicates at first instance.

Holding that the law must be settled uniformly across States and not left to different notifications, the Bench observed that the legislative imprimatur cannot be diluted by notifications issued by the High Courts. The matter was directed to be placed before the Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders, and Commercial Suit No. 11 of 2023 pending before the Civil Judge (Senior Division) I, Jamshedpur was stayed.