Judicial Insight
Back to feed
IndiaCivil

I.S.D.S. Private Limited vs M/S Khemka Food Products Pvt. Ltd

Court
Supreme Court of India
Decided
Sep 21, 2026
Citation
Special Leave Petition (C) No.6793 of 2026
Judges
J.B. Pardiwala, K. Vinod Chandran

AI breakdown

  • This case questions if Civil Judges in Jharkhand can hear trademark suits under new notifications.
  • The Supreme Court decided this conflict needs consideration by a larger bench.
  • The aim is to ensure uniformity in how such cases are handled across states.

Parties

  • Applicant

    I.S.D.S. Private Limited

  • Respondent

    M/S Khemka Food Products Pvt. Ltd

Judgment text (excerpt)
I.S.D.S. Private Limited vs M/S Khemka Food Products Pvt. Ltd on 21 September, 2026 Non-Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No……………of 2026 (@Special Leave Petition (C) No.6793 of 2026) I.S.D.S. Private Limited & Anr. …. Appellants Versus M/s Khemka Food Products Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. …. Respondents ORDER Leave granted. 2. The only question arising in the above appeal is as to whether the restriction contained under Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 to institute a suit for infringement etc. before any Court inferior to a District Court having jurisdiction to try the suit would be rendered otiose by the notification issued under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, by certain States notifying the Civil Judge (Senior Division) as a Commercial Court; herein the State of Jharkhand. 3. The learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the very intention of Section 134 was to ensure that infringement and like Page 1 of 11 CA@SLP(C) No.6793 of 2026 issues arising under the Trade Marks Act is dealt with by a District Court, which is diluted by a notification issued under the Commercial Courts Act. As of now, in the State of Jharkhand, any suit under Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act would have to be instituted before the Civil Judge (Senior Division) from which an appeal would lie to the District Court as provided under the Commercial Courts Act. This would prejudice the litigant insofar as there being no remedy provided for an appeal to the High Court and the High Courts’ jurisdiction will be confined to a revision or a challenge under Article 227; which inherently is restrictive in its scope, since no re-appreciation of evidence would be possible. The appellant has placed reliance on a number of judgments. 4. The intervener also supports the appellant with the further submission that the expression ‘having jurisdiction to try the suit’ under sub-section (1) of Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act is with reference to territorial jurisdiction …
Read the full judgmentpowered by IKanoon

Source: Indian Kanoon (indiankanoon.org). Indian court judgments are public records; the summary and translations are AI-generated.