Background
This case involves a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India filed by M/s Kranti Soap Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. in the Delhi High Court, challenging an order dated February 11, 2025, passed by the District Judge (Commercial), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. The order dismissed the petitioners’ application under Order XIV Rule 5 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking to frame additional issues in a trademark infringement suit initiated by M/s Deep Chand Arya Industries.
Nature of the Suit
The respondent, M/s Deep Chand Arya Industries, filed a commercial suit (CS (COMM) No.502/2024) against the petitioners for infringement of the registered trademark "KRANTI," seeking permanent injunction, damages, rendition of accounts, and other reliefs. On December 9, 2024, the trial court framed issues, including those related to injunction, damages, accounts, territorial jurisdiction, and relief, and appointed a Local Commissioner for evidence recording.
Petitioners’ Application
Approximately 54 days after the issues were framed, the petitioners sought additional issues, arguing that the suit did not qualify as a "commercial suit" under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, due to non-compliance with Sections 6 and 12. They claimed the respondent’s pleadings lacked a specific statement that the suit’s value exceeded Rs. 3,00,000, rendering it outside the commercial court’s jurisdiction.
Trial Court’s Impugned Order
The trial court rejected the petitioners’ application, holding that the suit was a commercial dispute involving trademark infringement. The respondent had valued the suit at Rs. 95,03,500, paid appropriate court fees, and complied with statutory requirements, thus satisfying the criteria for a commercial suit.
Petitioners’ Arguments
The petitioners contended that the suit was not maintainable as a commercial suit because the pleadings did not explicitly state a "specified value" above Rs. 3,00,000, as required by Sections 6 and 12 of the Commercial Courts Act. They relied on Pankaj Ravjibhai Patel v. SSS Pharmachem (P) Ltd., arguing that both a "commercial dispute" and a "specified value" above the threshold were mandatory. They asserted that any order by a court lacking jurisdiction is a nullity.
Respondent’s Arguments
The respondent countered that the suit, involving intellectual property rights, was governed by Section 12(1)(d) of the Commercial Courts Act, which bases the specified value on the market value estimated by the plaintiff. The suit was valued at Rs. 95,03,500, far exceeding the Rs. 3,00,000 threshold, and complied with the Court Fees Act, 1870, and Suits Valuation Act, 1887. The respondent cited Pankaj Ravjibhai Patel and Bharat Bhushan Gupta v. Pratap Narain Verma to argue that suit valuation depends on the reliefs claimed, not a rigid market value threshold.
Court’s Analysis
The Delhi High Court, presided over by Justice Saurabh Banerjee, upheld the trial court’s order. The court noted that framing issues under Order XIV of the CPC requires a clinical process based on material propositions of fact or law from pleadings. The trial court had followed this process, framing issues on December 9, 2024, and rejecting the petitioners’ application on February 11, 2025, after due consideration. The court found the petitioners’ argument—that the pleadings lacked an explicit "specified value" statement—overly technical. The respondent’s valuation of Rs. 95,03,500, supported by pleadings on market value and annual turnover, satisfied the Commercial Courts Act’s requirements. The court clarified that the Act does not override the Court Fees Act or Suits Valuation Act, as established in Pankaj Ravjibhai Patel, and suit valuation hinges on the reliefs claimed, per Bharat Bhushan Gupta.
Scope of Article 227
The court emphasized that interference under Article 227 is limited to cases of grave miscarriage of justice or flagrant legal violations, as held in Rajendra Diwan v. Pradeep Kumar Ranibala. The trial court’s order was well-reasoned and did not warrant interference.
Conclusion
The High Court dismissed the petition, finding no basis to interfere with the trial court’s order. The suit was deemed a valid commercial dispute, and the petitioners’ application for additional issues was rightly rejected.
