Supreme Court Annual Digest 2025: Commercial Courts Act, 2015

Arbitrability of Trademark Disputes – Dispute between two factions of a Coimbatore-based family over the "Sri Angannan Biriyani Hotel" trademark. The petitioner filed a civil suit seeking a permanent injunction and ₹20 lakhs in damages for alleged trademark infringement. The respondent invoked an arbitration clause in the Trademark Assignment Deed, leading to referral to arbitration by the Commercial Court and High Court. Held: Not all trademark disputes are non-arbitrable; disputes in personam arising from contractual obligations, such as those under a trademark license or assignment deed, are arbitrable. Allegations of fraud, misconduct, or statutory violations do not preclude arbitration when the dispute stems from an arbitration agreement. Under Section 8, the referral court's role is limited to confirming the existence of a valid arbitration agreement, leaving substantive issues like claim validity or fraud to the arbitral tribunal. Under Section 11(6A), the court's role is confined to verifying the arbitration agreement's existence, not adjudicating the dispute's merits. Disputes arising from trademark licenses or assignments, being in personam, are arbitrable unless they involve in rem rights affecting the public. Judicial authorities must enforce arbitration agreements under Section 8 without discretion to bypass this mandate. The principle that subordinate in personam rights arising from in rem rights are arbitrable, as established in Booz Allen and Hamilton Inc. v. SBI Home Finance Ltd., (2011) 5 SCC 532 and Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corporation, (2021) 2 SCC 1, was reaffirmed. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitioner's challenge, upholding the referral to arbitration. Petition dismissed; trademark dispute held arbitrable as it arose from an assignment deed. K. Mangayarkarasi v. N.J. Sundaresan, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 597 : 2025 INSC 687 : AIR 2025 SC (Civil) 1802 : (2025) 8 SCC 299 Bank Guarantees — Interim Relief - In exceptional circumstances, a High Court may invoke its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution to grant interim relief in arbitration proceedings, notwithstanding the Arbitration Act's emphasis on minimal judicial interference and the availability of remedies under Section 37(1)(b), where denial of such relief would occasion irreparable harm, such as the irretrievable injustice from encashment of a bank guarantee amid ongoing arbitration. The appellant, a construction contractor, furnished an unconditional bank guarantee of ₹3.73 crore to secure an advance payment under a residential construction contract with the respondent real estate company. Citing delays and poor performance, the appellant terminated the contract and invoked the guarantee. The respondent sought interim stay of encashment under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, which the Commercial Court denied. Invoking Article 227, the High Court stayed encashment pending arbitration, subject to extension of the guarantee's validity. Dismissing the appellant's appeal against the High Court's interference, the Supreme Court upheld the order, emphasizing the guarantee's ongoing validity, the arbitration's pendency, and the need to preserve the status quo to avert irreversible prejudice to the respondent. The Court directed expeditious disposal of the Section 9 petition within eight weeks, with the guarantee to subsist until final adjudication. Judicial restraint in arbitration is paramount, but Article 227 empowers exceptional intervention to prevent fraud of an egregious nature or irretrievable injustice; here, the High Court's interim measure balanced interests without prejudging merits, aligning with the Act's pro-arbitration ethos. Jindal Steel and Power Ltd. v. Bansal Infra Projects, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 544 : 2025 INSC 640 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) — Order VIII Rule 1 (Proviso) (as amended by Commercial Courts Act, 2015) — Written Statement — Extension of Limitation (COVID-19 Pandemic) — Right to Cross-Examine Witnesses (Even without Written Statement) — Appeal against rejection of Written Statement and decreeing of suit - The Supreme Court noted that the period for filing the Written Statement (WS) fell within the duration (15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022) excluded for the purpose of computing limitation - Held that WS filed belatedly in a commercial suit after the mandatory period of 120 days cannot be rejected when it was filed during COVID-19, as the delay fell entirely within the COVID-19 limitation extension ordered by Supreme Court. [Relied on In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation (2022) 3 SCC 117; Aditya Khaitan & Ors. v. IL & FS Financial Services Limited 2023 INSC 867; Paras 28, 29] Anvita Auto Tech Works Pvt. Ltd. v. Aroush Motors, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 988 : 2025 INSC 1202 Interpretation of Section 13(1A) Proviso – Held, Section 13(1A) consists of two parts - The main provision allows ...

Supreme Court Annual Digest 2025: Commercial Courts Act, 2015

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags