Can Civil Judge (Senior Division) Acting As Commercial Court Entertain Trade Mark Passing Off Suit? Supreme Court To Decide

The Supreme Court is set to decide whether a Civil Judge (Senior Division), functioning as a Commercial Court, can entertain a suit for passing off under Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which bars institution of such suits in a court inferior to a District Court.

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Atul Chandurkar issued notice on an SLP challenging Jharkhand High Court's view that the court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, being a Commercial Court, could entertain a suit for passing off.

“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”)…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. Issue notice, returnable on 24.2.2026”, the Court observed.

Section 134(1)(c) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 provides that no suit 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.

The issue arose in a passing off suit filed by Khemka Food Products Pvt. Ltd. Before the High Court, the plaintiff had challenged an order dated July 29, 2024 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division)-I, Jamshedpur returning a passing off plaint for presentation before a court having jurisdiction.

Allowing the appeal, the Division Bench of the High Court set aside the order of the Civil Judge and restored the suit. The High Court examined the scheme of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, including Sections 2(1)(b), 3 and 3A, and the 2018 amendment which reduced the specified value of commercial disputes from one crore rupees to three lakh rupees.

The High Court held that the legislature had left it open to the High Courts and State Governments to appoint either a Civil Judge (Senior Division) or an Additional District Judge as a Commercial Court at the first instance. It observed that in Jharkhand, Commercial Courts had been constituted both at the District Judge level and below the level of District Judge.

The High Court found that the trial court had erred in construing the expression “District Court” in Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act as “District Judge”. It held that Section 134 uses the expression “District Court having jurisdiction to try the suit” and not “District Judge”. The High Court also highlighted notifications that designated Civil Judges (Senior Division) as Commercial Courts and District Judges as Commercial Appellate Courts.

Holding that the Civil Judge (Senior Division)-I, Jamshedpur had jurisdiction to try the suit as a Commercial Court, the High Court quashed the order returning the plaint and directed the trial court to proceed with the suit in accordance with law.

Thus, suit respondent ISDS Private Limited & Anr. filed the present SLP before the Supreme Court challenging the High Court order.

Case no. – Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 60138/2025

Case Title – I.S.D.S. Private Limited & Anr. v. M/S Khemka Food Products Pvt. Ltd & Anr.