Institute For Technology And Management Trust Vs Putch Venkata Ramana & Ors. (Samata Lok Sansthan Trust)**
**Date of Judgment:** 30.06.2026
**Case No.:** Interim Application No. 3128 of 2025 in Commercial IP Suit No. 102 of 2015 & Connected Matters
**Neutral Citation:** (as per judgment)
**Court:** High Court of Judicature at Bombay
**Hon'ble Judge:** Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan
The court considered a dispute concerning the transfer of trademark rectification proceedings pending before the Registrar of Trade Marks to the High Court for consolidation with a related commercial IP suit and other connected matters. The case arose from long-standing rival claims between two educational trusts over the use and registration of "ITM" marks, with parallel rectification applications filed by both sides. The principal question before the Court was whether the High Court could exercise powers under Section 24 of the CPC to transfer proceedings from the Registrar, treating it as a subordinate court, for efficient adjudication and to avoid conflicting outcomes.
After examining the material on record and the submissions of the parties, Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan observed that the Registrar possesses significant trappings of a civil court under the Trade Marks Act, including powers to receive evidence, enforce attendance, and pass executable orders, with appeals lying to the High Court. The Court held that in the context of Section 24 CPC and concurrent jurisdiction under Sections 47 and 57 of the Trade Marks Act, the Registrar qualifies as a court subordinate to the High Court for transfer purposes, guided by principles of forum conveniens.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the Transfer Application and directed the ITM Rectification Proceedings pending before the Registrar to be transferred to the High Court for being clubbed and heard along with the Suit and Samata Rectification Proceedings.
[Disclaimer: Readers are advised not treat this as a substitute for legal advise as it is based on limited information and is intended solely for general informational purposes.]
### Introduction
In a significant ruling on procedural efficiency in intellectual property disputes, the Bombay High Court addressed the consolidation of parallel trademark rectification proceedings. This case underscores the challenges of fragmented litigation in trademark battles between educational institutions and highlights the judiciary's role in ensuring coherent justice delivery. For litigants, practitioners, and businesses involved in IP matters, the judgment clarifies pathways for transferring cases from the Registrar of Trade Marks to the High Court, promoting faster resolution and preventing inconsistent decisions in overlapping disputes. It balances statutory frameworks with practical needs in India's evolving IP landscape.
### Factual and Procedural Background
Two trusts engaged in educational activities clashed over the "ITM" marks. The Institute for Technology and Management Trust (ITM) filed a commercial IP suit in 2015 alleging abuse of its marks by Samata Lok Sansthan Trust. ITM initiated rectification proceedings before the Registrar of Trade Marks seeking cancellation of Samata's registrations. Samata responded with its own rectification applications before the erstwhile IPAB against ITM's registrations. Following the IPAB's disbandment, Samata's proceedings were transferred to the High Court and directed to be heard with the suit. ITM then filed an interim application seeking transfer of its three rectification proceedings from the Registrar to the High Court for consolidation. Multiple miscellaneous petitions and related applications were also clubbed, involving overlapping issues of trademark validity between the same parties.
### Dispute Before the Court
The central issue was whether the High Court could transfer rectification proceedings from the Registrar to itself under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure for clubbing with the ongoing suit and other matters. ITM argued for efficiency to avoid divergent outcomes in connected disputes over the same marks. Samata opposed, contending the application was misconceived as the Registrar is not a "court" subordinate to the High Court, the filing should have been under Section 125 of the Trade Marks Act or on the Appellate Side, and precedents did not support the move. The parties debated the Registrar's status, inherent powers of the court, and procedural requirements for such transfers.
### Reasoning and Analysis of the Court
The Court analyzed Section 24 of the CPC, which empowers the High Court to transfer proceedings from subordinate courts, alongside Section 151 for inherent powers. It examined the Trade Marks Act, 1999, particularly Sections 47, 57, 91, 124, and 127, noting the Registrar's broad powers akin to a civil court—receiving evidence, administering oaths, compelling documents, passing executable cost orders, and self-review—coupled with appeals lying directly to the High Court under Section 91. This made the Registrar a subordinate forum in this context for transfer purposes.
The Court discussed key precedents. It distinguished *Anglo French Drug Co. (Eastern) Private Ltd. v. R.D. Tinaikar* (1957) and *Promoshirt SM SA v. Armassuisse* (2023), which addressed different contexts like right of audience and second appeals, emphasizing that whether a forum is a "court" depends on legislative policy and context, not a universal rule. It relied on *Bhagwati Devi v. I.S. Goel* (1982) and *State of Haryana v. Darshana Devi*, where tribunals like MACT were treated as civil courts for transfer powers. *Nahar Industrial Enterprises Ltd v. Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corp* (2009) was distinguished due to differing appeal structures. The Court also referenced *Jumeirah Beach Resort LLC v. Designarch Infrastructure Pvt Ltd* (Delhi HC) and *Nippon Paint* (Madras HC) for similar transfers, and *Delhi Science Forum v. Union of India* (1996) to hold that absence of specific IPR rules does not bar substantive powers. It stressed forum conveniens, concurrent jurisdiction, and avoiding chaos from parallel proceedings, invoking inherent powers under Section 151 CPC where needed.
### Final Decision of the Court
The Court allowed the Transfer Application (Interim Application No. 3128 of 2025). It directed the transfer of the ITM Rectification Proceedings from the Registrar to the High Court for clubbing and hearing along with the Commercial IP Suit and Samata Rectification Proceedings. Other connected applications were disposed of accordingly to facilitate consolidated adjudication.
### Point of Law Settled
The judgment clarifies that the Registrar of Trade Marks can be regarded as a court subordinate to the High Court for purposes of transfer under Section 24 CPC in the context of rectification proceedings, given its trappings of judicial power, concurrent jurisdiction with the High Court under the Trade Marks Act, and appellate oversight. This principle promotes efficient consolidation of related IP disputes, reducing multiplicity and conflicting rulings. It is likely to guide future cases involving tribunal-to-High Court transfers, reinforcing contextual interpretation of "court" and inherent judicial powers for justice delivery.
**Case Details:**
**Title of the Case:** Institute For Technology And Management Trust And Anr. vs Putch Venkata Ramana & Ors. (with Samata Lok Sansthan Trust)
**Date of Judgment/Order:** 30.06.2026
**Case Number:** Interim Application No. 3128 of 2025 in Commercial IP Suit No. 102 of 2015 & Connected Miscellaneous Petitions
**Neutral Citation:** (as per judgment)
**Name of Court:** High Court of Judicature at Bombay
**Name of Hon'ble Judge:** Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan
**Written By:** Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
**Disclaimer:** Images used herein do not reflect actual images used in Judgement and that the same are for illustrative purpose only. Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advice as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.
**Suggested SEO Titles:**
1. Bombay High Court Allows Transfer of Trademark Rectification Proceedings from Registrar
2. Registrar of Trade Marks as Subordinate Court: Key Bombay HC Ruling on Section 24 CPC
3. ITM vs Samata Trust Judgment: Consolidation of IP Disputes Explained
4. Bombay HC Clarifies Transfer Powers in Trademark Rectification Cases 2026
5. Section 24 CPC and Trade Marks Act: Landmark Ruling on Tribunal Transfers
6. Avoiding Parallel Litigation: Bombay High Court on Clubbing Rectification Proceedings
7. Impact of Bombay HC Order on IP Practitioners and Educational Institutions
8. Contextual Interpretation of 'Court' Under CPC in Trademark Matters
9. Bombay High Court Upholds Efficient Justice in Overlapping Trademark Suits
10. From Registrar to High Court: Procedure for Transfer in IP Rectification Cases
**Suggested SEO Tags:** Trade Marks Act 1999, Section 24 CPC, Registrar of Trade Marks, rectification proceedings transfer, Bombay High Court IP judgment, forum conveniens, trademark dispute consolidation, Section 57 Trade Marks Act, Section 127 Trade Marks Act, inherent powers CPC, ITM Trust case, Samata Lok Sansthan, commercial IP suit, appellate side rules, concurrent jurisdiction, Promoshirt case, Anglo French case, Bhagwati Devi judgment, Nahar Industrial case, Delhi Science Forum, Jumeirah Beach case, AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman, IPAdjutor
**Headnote of the Judgment:** In the Bombay High Court, Institute For Technology And Management Trust sought transfer of its rectification proceedings pending before the Registrar of Trade Marks to be clubbed with a 2015 Commercial IP Suit and Samata's transferred proceedings over rival "ITM" marks. Opposing the move as misconceived since the Registrar is not a court, the respondent raised procedural objections. The Court allowed the transfer application, holding the Registrar qualifies as a subordinate court under Section 24 CPC in this context due to its judicial trappings and appellate oversight, directing consolidation for efficient adjudication. (98 words)
**Prompt for Info-graphic 14:9 aspect ratio image:** Create a suitable 3d hyper realistic multicolour 8K Quality Legal info-graphic containing necessary information in graph,chart, tables , Circles , Dashboard etc. The texts be large , bold and 3D Stylish multicolour containing name of case,date of order,case no, name of court, decision and one most important principle of law laid down. Also use generic images for the product or service involved in the matter. Do not use name of any court, lawyer , tricolor, Ashoka Emblem and any other government insignia. At end of this prompt add this sentence also" Use attached image as Image of lawyer in lawyers dress at left bottom corner which should cover 20 % of entire image area.
