#commercial courts

The Delhi High Court set aside a ₹15 lakh pre-judgment security order, ruling that mere apprehension of asset disposal, a defendant's residence outside the jurisdiction, and evasive denials do not satisfy the stringent requirement under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 CPC to prove a concrete intent to defeat decree execution. The decision raises the evidentiary bar for plaintiffs seeking attachment before judgment in commercial suits.

Kerala High Court rules that raising a defence under Section 22(4) of the Designs Act, 2000-challenging the validity of a registered design-automatically transfers the case to the High Court, bypassing lower court jurisdiction. This holding reinforces the exclusive jurisdiction of High Courts in design validity disputes, impacting litigants and practitioners in IP enforcement.

The Karnataka High Court held that once a commercial court reserves orders on an interlocutory application, appellate courts cannot intervene with interim relief, even if irreparable harm is alleged. This ruling reinforces judicial hierarchy and prevents bypassing of procedural timelines in commercial disputes, impacting litigants seeking urgent relief during reserved judgments.