Section 134 Trade Marks Act | Power Of High Court To Notify Civil Judge (Senior Division) As Commercial Court Requires Re-Examination By Larger Bench: Supreme Court

"In our humble view the legislative imprimatur cannot be diluted by the notifications issued by the High Courts." Supreme Court, in an order dated September 21, 2026, has referred to a larger bench the question of whether notifications issued under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, which designate Civil Judges (Senior Division) as Commercial Courts, effectively render the jurisdictional restrictions of Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, otiose.

A bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran observed that the apparent conflict between the special status of the Trade Marks Act and the procedural nature of the Commercial Courts Act warrants an authoritative resolution to ensure national uniformity.

Conflict Between Special Legislations

The dispute arose in the context of a suit for trade mark infringement. The core issue involves determining whether the exclusive jurisdiction conferred upon the District Court under Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act can be superseded by state-level notifications issued under the Commercial Courts Act. Such notifications often lower the jurisdictional threshold by empowering Civil Judges (Senior Division) to preside over commercial disputes, which the appellants contend undermines the legislative intent of maintaining high-level oversight for intellectual property litigation.

Scope of Section 134 Jurisdiction

The court was primarily called upon to determine if the phrase "having jurisdiction to try the suit" under Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act refers strictly to territoriality or if it preserves the exclusive competence of the District Court. Furthermore, the bench examined whether the Commercial Courts Act, as a subsequent general legislation, can implicitly override the specific provisions of the Trade Marks Act. The court also considered whether the lack of an appeal to the High Court from the decision of a Civil Judge (Senior Division) acting as a Commercial Court causes irreparable prejudice to litigants.

Divergent Judicial Precedents

The bench noted a significant divergence in previous rulings regarding the interaction between these statutes. While Jaycee Housing Private Limited v. Registrar (General), Orissa High Court suggested that the Commercial Courts Act prevails due to its nature as a special enactment, the decision in Kandla Export Corporation v. OCI Corporation characterized the Arbitration Act as a "code unto itself," implying a different treatment for special statutes. The bench acknowledged that while the Commercial Courts Act deals with the "genus" of commercial disputes, trade mark rights represent a specific "species," creating a complex interplay that necessitates further judicial clarification.

Need for Uniform Legal Interpretation

The Supreme Court emphasized that the jurisdictional landscape should not be subject to disparate notifications issued by various High Courts across different states. Observing the anomaly in states like Jharkhand and Kerala, the court noted that different pecuniary values assigned to Civil Judge (Senior Division) courts create confusion regarding the correct forum for filing suits. The bench expressed that the legislative mandate, which intended for District Courts to handle such litigation, remains a point of significant concern that requires a definitive interpretation.

"The apparent conflict in the two decisions, according to us, needs to be looked into by a larger bench."

The Court ultimately stayed the proceedings in the subject Commercial Suit pending before the CJ (SD) – I, Jamshedpur. By referring the matter to a larger bench, the Supreme Court seeks to settle whether the notification power under Section 3 of the Commercial Courts Act is restricted when it encroaches upon the specific jurisdictional mandates provided by earlier special statutes like the Trade Marks Act. This referral is expected to provide much-needed clarity for practitioners in the field of intellectual property law.

Date of Decision: 21 September 2026