Back to feed Read the full judgment
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 …

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