logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 SC 240 print Preview print Next print
Court : Supreme Court of India
Case No : Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 60138 of 2025
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. VISWANATHAN
Parties : I.S. D.S. Private Limited & Another Versus M/s. Khemka Food Products Pvt. Ltd. & Another\r\n
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioners: ----- For the Respondents: -----
Date of Judgment : 10-02-2026
Head Note :-
Trade Marks Act, 1999 - Section 134 -
Summary :-
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules Mentioned:
- Trade Marks Act, 1999
- Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999

2. Catch Words:
- passing off
- jurisdiction
- court inferior to a District Court

3. Summary:
The matter was heard before the Court with counsel for both parties. The Court condoned the delay in filing. The central issue concerned the interpretation of “in Court inferior to a District Court” under Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, specifically whether a Civil Judge (Senior Division) acting as a Commercial Court qualifies as such a court. The High Court held that the Civil Judge (Senior Division) is indeed a court inferior to a District Court, making the passing‑off suit maintainable. Consequently, a notice was issued to be returned on 24‑02‑2026, and the commercial suit pending before the Civil Judge (Senior Division)‑I, Jamshedpur, was stayed pending the outcome. The matter was listed for further hearing on the specified date.

4. Conclusion:
Petition Allowed
Judgment :-

1. Heard Mr. Singh Nishant Sanjay Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners (original defendants) and Mr. Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents (original plaintiffs).

2. Delay condoned.

3. The short point that falls for our consideration is with regard to Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (for short, "the Act, 1999") which says that

                   (1) No suit--

                   (a) xx xx xx

                   (b) xx xx xx

                   (c) for passing off arising out of the use by the defendant of any trade mark which is identical with or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's trade mark, whether registered or unregistered, shall be instituted in any court inferior to a District Court having jurisdiction to try the suit."

4. What meaning should be ascribed to the expression "in Court inferior to a District Court"? The High Court seems to have taken the view that the court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, being a Commercial Court, the suit instituted by the plaintiffs for passing off is maintainable.

5. Issue notice, returnable on 24.2.2026.

6. Mr. Aakash Nandolia, the learned advocate on record, waives service of notice for and on behalf of the respondents.

7. In the meantime, the further proceedings of Commercial Suit No. 11/2023 filed before the Civil Judge (Senior Division)-I, Jamshedpur, shall remain stayed.

8. List on 24.2.2026 on the top of the Board.
 
  CDJLawJournal