Rajesh Lunkad filed Special Civil Suit No. 24 of 2021 in June 2021 before the District Judge, Pune, seeking injunction and damages against Kirti Dal Mills for alleged trademark infringement and passing off concerning the mark “Champion” in edible oils. Kirti Dal Mills challenged the jurisdiction, contending the suit, being a commercial dispute, should lie only before a designated Commercial Court under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and the 2019 Notification, and the Pune District Court was not so designated. While that suit remained pending (with interim stay on hearing granted in revision), Kirti Dal Mills filed Commercial Suit No. 1 of 2024 in November 2024 before the designated Commercial Court at Latur seeking injunction against Rajesh Lunkad for using “Champion”. Rajesh Lunkad applied under Section 10 CPC for stay of the Latur suit pending disposal of the Pune suit, which was granted on 06.05.2025. Kirti Dal Mills challenged this stay order by way of writ petition. The High Court held that since the earlier Pune suit was pending before a court not designated as Commercial Court and therefore lacking competence to grant the relief claimed in the commercial dispute, Section 10 CPC could not be invoked to stay the subsequent properly instituted Latur suit. The Court quashed the stay order and directed the Latur Commercial Court to proceed with the suit.
For Section 10 CPC to apply and stay a subsequent suit, the previously instituted suit must be pending in a court competent to grant the relief claimed in the subsequent suit; where the earlier court lacks jurisdiction due to statutory designation requirements under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, stay cannot be granted (Paras 28-32).
Trademark infringement and passing off suits, though required under Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 to be filed before a District Court, must, when constituting commercial disputes, be adjudicated only by courts specifically designated as Commercial Courts under the Commercial Courts Act and relevant notifications, the latter having overriding effect (Paras 24-30).
Relied on ASPI Jal v. Khushroo Rustom Dadyburjor (2013) 4 SCC 333 and Minocher Behranji Damania v. Homa N. Dadachanji 1981 Mh.L.J. 659 (Paras 17, 20, 31-32).
Case Title: Kirti Dal Mills Limited Vs Rajesh Lunkad
Order Date: Pronounced on December 18, 2025
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 10521 of 2025
Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-AUG:35919
Name of Court: High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad
Name of Judge: Y. G. Khobragade, J.
[Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation]
[Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi]
