Mere Existence Of Territorial Jurisdiction Under IP Laws Cannot Justify Forum Shopping; No Hierarchy Exists Among High Courts: Supreme Court

"The mere existence of territorial jurisdiction in various courts cannot on its own become justification for forum shopping and cannot result in the perpetuation of notions of a hierarchy among the High Courts of this country." The Supreme Court observed on October 28, 2026, that the mere statutory existence of territorial jurisdiction in intellectual property disputes cannot be converted into a tool for forum shopping or used to perpetuate an artificial hierarchy among High Courts.

A Division Bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice R. Mahadevan made these observations while exercising powers under Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, transferring a commercial intellectual property suit from the Delhi High Court to the Madras High Court.

The petitioners, arrayed as defendants in the commercial suit CS(COMM) 625/2026, were carrying on their business operations in Chennai, Tamil Nadu. The respondents, who instituted the suit before the Delhi High Court, maintained their principal place of business at Nelmangala in Bangalore Rural District, Karnataka. Aggrieved by the institution of the suit before the Delhi High Court despite both commercial entities being based in neighboring southern states, the defendants approached the Supreme Court seeking transfer of the proceedings to the Madras High Court.

Whether a plaintiff can invoke the territorial jurisdiction of a distant High Court when the parties, dispute genesis, and factual locus lie elsewhere. Whether the perception that a particular High Court is better suited to adjudicate intellectual property disputes can defeat the bar against forum shopping under Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Expressing surprise at the invocation of the Delhi High Court's jurisdiction, the Bench questioned why the respondents preferred filing the commercial suit in New Delhi when both litigating parties were residing and carrying on business in the neighbouring States of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. The Court emphasized that the Madras High Court also possesses ordinary original civil jurisdiction competent to entertain and try the dispute.

Courts where the factual locus lies are best equipped to understand dispute nuances

Justice Nagarathna, speaking for the Bench, clarified that the transfer of proceedings under Section 25 CPC is not steered merely by balance of convenience. The Court observed that when the parties, genesis, and factual locus of a case are anchored in a specific geographic location, the courts of that location are best suited to appreciate the ground nuances of the dispute.

The Bench categorically dismantled the prevailing perception among commercial litigants regarding the specialized competence of specific forums. The Court observed: "While it could be true that various High Courts may have the jurisdiction to hear a particular case, especially in the case of intellectual property disputes, any perception of a particular High Court being better suited to hearing a particular type of dispute is entirely misguided and erroneous."

No High Court enjoys superiority over others in hearing intellectual property matters

Firmly rebuking forum shopping in commercial and intellectual property litigation, the Bench underlined the constitutional parity shared by all High Courts in the country. The Court held: "The mere existence of territorial jurisdiction in various courts cannot on its own become justification for forum shopping and cannot result in the perpetuation of notions of a hierarchy among the High Courts of this country."

Assessing the expediency of disposal and practical aspects, the Court concluded that the petitioners had established a fit case for transferring the proceedings. The Bench found that the interests of justice would be fully served by transferring the commercial suit to the Madras High Court, given the proximate geographical locations of the parties.

The Supreme Court allowed the Transfer Petition and directed the transfer of CS(COMM) 625/2026, along with all pending interlocutory applications, from the file of the High Court of Delhi to the High Court of Judicature at Madras. The Court extended liberty to the respondents to participate in the proceedings before the Transferee Court either in person or via video conferencing facility.

Date of Decision: October 28, 2026