SC Refers to Larger Bench: Can Civil Judges Notified as Commercial Courts Try Trademark Suits?

On September 21, 2026, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in I.S.D.S. Private Limited & Anr. v. M/s Khemka Food Products Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. (Civil Appeal, arising out of SLP (C) No. 6793 of 2026), granted leave and directed that the matter be placed before the Chief Justice of India for reference to a larger bench on the question whether a Civil Judge (Senior Division), notified as a Commercial Court, can entertain a suit for trademark infringement in view of Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (Trade Marks Act).

The dispute relates to the mark “Grihasti Bhog”. Khemka Food Products instituted Commercial Suit No. 11 of 2023 for infringement and passing off before the Civil Judge (Senior Division)-I-cum-Commercial Court, Jamshedpur. The suit was valued at ₹5,05,000. The defendants sought return of the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), contending that Section 134 required a District Court. The Civil Judge returned the plaint on July 29, 2024.

Khemka Food Products challenged the order before the Jharkhand High Court. In M/s Khemka Food Products Pvt. Ltd. v. I.S.D.S. Private Limited & Ors. [Commercial Appeal No. 14 of 2024], decided on August 8, 2025, the Division Bench set aside the order and restored the suit. The High Court held that the trial court had erred in construing “District Court” under Section 134 as “District Judge” and took note of the notification under which the Civil Judge (Senior Division) had been notified as a Commercial Court. I.S.D.S. thereafter challenged the decision before the Supreme Court.

At the centre of the dispute is the interplay between Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act and the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (Commercial Courts Act). Section 134 bars institution of specified infringement and passing-off suits before a court inferior to a District Court. Section 2(1)(c)(xvii) of the Commercial Courts Act includes disputes relating to trademarks within “commercial disputes”. Section 3 concerns constitution of Commercial Courts, while Section 21 gives the Act overriding effect in case of inconsistency with another law.

The Commercial Courts (Amendment) Act, 2018 reduced the specified value of commercial disputes from ₹1 crore to ₹3 lakh (Section 2(1)(i)), empowered State Governments to specify the pecuniary value of Commercial Courts (Section 3(1A)), and permitted Commercial Courts to be constituted at the level of a District Judge or a court below that level (Section 3(3)). In Jharkhand, Notification No. 206/J dated February 8, 2021, issued by the State Government in consultation with the High Court, conferred original jurisdiction on the Civil Judge (Senior Division) over commercial disputes valued between ₹3 lakh and ₹1 crore. The present suit, valued at ₹5,05,000, therefore fell within that pecuniary range.

The appellants argued that a notification cannot override Section 134, and that an appeal from the Civil Judge lies to the District Court, leaving the High Court only revisional or Article 227 jurisdiction. An intervener, supporting the appellants, argued that the words “having jurisdiction to try the suit” in Section 134(1) refer to territorial jurisdiction, and that the Trade Marks Act is a special law while the Commercial Courts Act is a general one. The respondents contended that the Commercial Courts Act, as a later special enactment, prevails, relying on Section 2(1)(c)(xvii) and the non obstante clause in Section 21.

The Court noted an apparent conflict between Kandla Export Corporation v. OCI Corporation, (2018) 14 SCC 715, which treated the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 as a self-contained code vis-à-vis the Commercial Courts Act, and Jaycee Housing Private Limited v. Registrar (General), Orissa High Court, (2023) 1 SCC 549, which held that the later Commercial Courts Act prevails over inconsistent jurisdictional provisions of the Arbitration Act. The Bench considered that this apparent conflict between the two decisions needs to be examined by a larger bench.

The Bench observed that trademark disputes are a “species” of the broader “genus” of commercial disputes. It reasoned, prima facie, that Section 21 gives the Commercial Courts Act overriding effect only where there is an inconsistency, and that Section 134 is not inconsistent with that Act, since High Courts may also notify Courts of District Judges as Commercial Courts. In the Bench’s view, the difficulty arises only when Civil Judges are notified as Commercial Courts. It noted the resulting anomaly in Jharkhand: a trademark suit valued below ₹3 lakh must still be filed before the District Court under Section 134, while a higher-valued suit goes to the Civil Judge (Senior Division). It also noted that Kerala, after first notifying Civil Judges (Senior Division), issued a later notification designating District Courts and Additional District Courts as Commercial Courts for disputes under the Trade Marks Act and other statutes.

Observing that the “legislative imprimatur cannot be diluted” by the notifications issued by the High Courts, the Bench held that the matter should be referred to a Larger Bench to resolve the conflict and settle a uniform law across States, and directed that it be placed before the Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders. It also stayed Commercial Suit No. 11 of 2023 pending before the Civil Judge (Senior Division)-I, Jamshedpur.