Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Saurabh Banerjee dismissed the petition challenging the Trial Court's order and upheld the jurisdiction of the Commercial Court in a trademark infringement suit. The Court held that the respondent had sufficiently pleaded and valued the suit above the statutory threshold, thus satisfying the requirements under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Emphasizing that framing of additional issues was unnecessary, the Court found no error in the Trial Court’s earlier orders and concluded that the proceedings had been correctly conducted.

The petitioners, M/s Kranti Soap Pvt. Ltd. and others, filed a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution to assail the order dated February 11, 2025. The challenged order dismissed their application under Order XIV Rule 5 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("CPC") in CS (COMM) No. 502/2024. The suit was instituted by the respondent, M/s Deep Chand Arya Industries, for infringement of a registered trademark "KRANTI," claiming damages and other reliefs.

Also Read: Supreme Court: ‘Leave Encashment Not Available Twice’ — Sets Aside High Court Orders Allowing Second Encashment Post Re-employment

Upon completion of pleadings, the learned Trial Court framed five issues on December 9, 2024, and appointed a Local Commissioner to record evidence. After about 54 days, the petitioners filed an application seeking framing of additional issues, asserting that the suit did not satisfy the requirements of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 ("CC Act"), particularly Sections 6 and 12, thus contending that the suit could not be treated as a commercial suit.

The petitioners argued that the plaint failed to contain a categorical averment regarding the "specified value" above Rs. 3,00,000 as required under the CC Act. They relied heavily on the Division Bench judgment in Pankaj Ravjibhai Patel v. SSS Pharmachem (P) Ltd., asserting that absence of such a clear averment rendered the suit not maintainable before the commercial court.

Conversely, the respondent contended through Senior Counsel Mr. J. Sai Deepak that the suit pertained to intellectual property rights governed by Section 12(1)(d) of the CC Act, requiring estimation of market value by the plaintiff. The respondent argued that the suit was valued at Rs. 95,03,500, satisfying the statutory threshold and fulfilling the criteria for a commercial suit. Reliance was placed upon Bharat Bhushan Gupta v. Pratap Narain Verma to assert that valuation is dependent on the reliefs claimed, not merely the market value of the property involved.

The respondent stated that the valuation made was compliant with the Court Fees Act, 1870 and the Suits Valuation Act, 1887, and contended that no additional issue needed framing.

The Court recorded that "depending upon the pleadings involved, such issue(s) is qua a material proposition of fact or law, i.e. it can be an 'issue of fact' and/or an 'issue of law'." Justice Saurabh Banerjee noted that issues must be framed only "on which the right decision of the case appears to depend," referencing Order XIV CPC.

The Court observed that "the respondent has instituted a suit for infringement of registered trademark 'KRANTI' against the petitioners, wherein it has pleaded qua the market value involved, as also qua the annual turnover over the years in the pleadings, before valuing the suit at Rs.95,03,500." It held that this satisfied the statutory threshold of more than Rs. 3,00,000 under the CC Act.

Justice Banerjee stated, "though the petitioners in their written statement, have pleaded qua the maintainability of the suit before a 'commercial Court', however, the same is not by itself sufficient for framing of an issue."

Further, the Court rejected the petitioners' argument that a categorical line stating "specified value" must appear in the pleadings, terming it "an extremely narrow and hyper technical interpretation."

On harmonizing the CC Act with other statutes, the Court cited Pankaj Ravjibhai Patel stating, "Section 12 cannot possibly be construed as seeking to override the principles enshrined in the Court Fees and Suits Valuation Acts." It recorded that both statutes should be read "in consonance."

Also Read: "No GST on Services Provided by Clubs to Members: Kerala High Court Strikes Down Section 7(1)(aa) of CGST Act as Unconstitutional"

The Court also referred to Bharat Bhushan Gupta, affirming that "it is the nature of relief claimed in the plaint which is decisive of the question of suit valuation."

Justice Banerjee stated the limited scope of Article 227 jurisdiction, quoting Rajendra Diwan v. Pradeep Kumar Ranibala, "The power of superintendence conferred by Article 227 is, however, supervisory and not appellate."

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the petition, stating: "In light of the afore-going analysis and reasonings, no interference by this Court is required in the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court."

The petition was dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their respective costs.

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For Petitioners: Mr. Mohan Vidhani, Mr. Saurabh Kumar, Ms. Nidhi Pandey

For Respondents: Mr. J. Sai Deepak, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rishabh Srivastava, Ms. Yasheswini Sharma, Ms. Purnima Vashishtha

Case Title: M/s Kranti Soap Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. M/s Deep Chand Arya Industries

Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:2908

Case Number: CM(M)-IPD 4/2025, CM 41/2025-Stay and CM 42/2025-Exp

Bench: Justice Saurabh Banerjee

[Read/Download order]