The Supreme Court referred a jurisdictional conflict between Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and a Jharkhand notification under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 to a Larger Bench, staying a pending commercial suit.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The dispute centres on whether a notification issued by the State of Jharkhand designating the Civil Judge (Senior Division) as a Commercial Court renders Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 ineffective. Section 134 prohibits the institution of a suit for infringement of a trade mark before any court inferior to a District Court having jurisdiction to try the suit. The Jharkhand notification, however, permits suits to be filed before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), which is inferior to a District Court, creating an apparent inconsistency.
Key Facts
- The appellants are I.S.D.S. Private Limited & Anr.
- The respondents are M/s Khemka Food Products Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
- A Commercial Suit No.11 of 2023 is pending before the Civil Judge (Senior Division) - I, Jamshedpur.
- The judgment was pronounced on 21 September 2026.
- The matter arose from a Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.6793 of 2026.
Procedural History
- The Special Leave Petition was filed challenging the maintainability of the suit before the Civil Judge (Senior Division) under the Jharkhand notification.
- The Court granted leave to appeal and proceeded to examine the conflict.
- The appellants relied on earlier judgments such as Kandla Export Corporation and Anr. v. OCI Corporation and Anr. (2018) 14 SCC 715 and Jaycee Ho using Private Limited and Ors. v. Registrar (General), Orissa High Court and Ors. (2023) 1 SCC 549 to argue that the Trade Marks Act, being a special legislation, must prevail.
- The respondents relied on the non-obstante clause in Section 21 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and the principle that a later special legislation prevails over an earlier one.
Relief Sought
The appellants sought a declaration that the suit must be instituted before a District Court, not the Civil Judge (Senior Division), and that the Jharkhand notification is ineffective to the extent it conflicts with Section 134. The respondents sought affirmation that the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 applies and that the suit is maintainable before the notified Commercial Court.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the notification issued by Jharkhand under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 designating the Civil Judge (Senior Division) as a Commercial Court renders Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 otiose, thereby requiring referral to a Larger Bench to resolve the conflict and settle the law uniformly across States.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
The appellants contended that Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 reflects the legislative intent to confer exclusive jurisdiction on District Courts for trade mark infringement suits. They argued that the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, being a general legislation on commercial disputes, cannot dilute the special provision of the Trade Marks Act. They placed reliance on Kandla Export Corporation and Anr. v. OCI Corporation and Anr. which held that the Arbitration Act is a self-contained code, and on Jaycee Ho using Private Limited and Ors. v. Registrar (General), Orissa High Court and Ors. which emphasized that a later special legislation prevails only when there is an express non-obstante clause, and that the Trade Marks Act, being earlier special legislation, should not be overridden without clear intent.
For the Respondent/State
The respondents argued that the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 is a special legislation enacted for expeditious adjudication of commercial disputes and contains an overriding non-obstante provision in Section 21. They submitted that, as a later special legislation, it prevails over the earlier Trade Marks Act in case of inconsistency. They relied on the doctrine of harmonious construction but asserted that where conflict is irreconcilable, the later enactment must prevail. They also pointed out that the notification was issued under the authority of the High Court and thus valid.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the principles of statutory interpretation, particularly harmonious construction and the effect of non-obstante clauses. It noted that Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 operates as a jurisdictional bar, while the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 empowers High Courts to notify lower courts as Commercial Courts. The Court observed that the conflict arises only when the notification designates a Civil Judge (Senior Division) as a Commercial Court, which is inferior to a District Court. It referred to the earlier decisions of Kandla Export Corporation and Anr. v. OCI Corporation and Anr. and Jaycee Ho using Private Limited and Ors. v. Registrar (General), Orissa High Court and Ors. which highlighted the tension between special statutes and general commercial legislation.
The Court emphasized that the legislative imprimatur of a special statute cannot be diluted by notifications issued under a later general legislation unless there is a clear overriding intent. It noted that the matter involves a question of uniform application of law across States, as different States have issued varying notifications under the Commercial Courts Act. Consequently, the Court concluded that the issue requires consideration by a Larger Bench to settle the law and ensure uniformity.
"We are of the opinion that the matter has to be referred to the Larger Bench for resolving the conflict and also settling the law to be uniform throughout the States and the jurisdiction not to be left to the different notifications issued in the various States."
The Verdict
The Court granted leave to appeal, referred the matter to a Larger Bench for resolution of the conflict between Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and the Jharkhand notification under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, and directed that the Commercial Suit No.11 of 2023 pending before the Civil Judge (Senior Division) - I, Jamshedpur shall stay pending the Bench’s decision.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Jurisdictional Harmony Between Special Statutes
When a special statute contains a specific jurisdictional bar, a later general legislation cannot override it without an express non-obstante clause. Practitioners must examine whether the later statute clearly intends to prevail.
- Check for overriding provisions in the later enactment.
- If absent, argue that the special statute’s jurisdictional provision remains intact.
Impact of Non-Obstante Clauses
A non-obstante clause in a later special legislation can prevail over an earlier special statute, but only if the conflict is irreconcilable and the clause is unequivocal.
- Identify the presence and scope of Section 21-type clauses.
- Assess whether the conflict is capable of harmonious construction.
Need for Larger Bench Referrals
Where divergent State notifications create uncertainty about the application of a central statute, the Supreme Court may refer the matter to a Larger Bench to ensure uniform law.
- Anticipate possible referrals when multiple State notifications exist.
- Prepare arguments that address both the statutory text and the need for uniformity.
