The court addressed whether notifications designating Civil Judges as Commercial Courts override the Trade Marks Act's requirement that infringement suits be filed before a District Court, referring the conflict between general and special legislation to a larger bench for resolution.

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 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 and does not digress from the jurisdiction exclusively conferred to a District Court. It cannot at all be said that by the enactment of the Commercial Courts Act enabling suits of a commercial nature to be filed before the Courts conferred with jurisdiction by a notification issued by the High Court, to directly interfere with the specific jurisdiction conferred under the Trade Marks Act. It is the submission of the appellant and the intervener that the Trade Marks Act is a special legislation and with reference to the said Act, the Commercial Courts Act, which brings within its ambit many aspects under the definition of commercial disputes under Section 2(1)(c) is a general legislation.

5. The learned Counsel for the respondent on the other hand, specifically points to Section 2(1)(c)(xvii), which deals with Intellectual Property Rights related to registered and unregistered trade marks and other such rights. It is pointed out that the Commercial Courts Act, being a subsequent legislation, which also is a special legislation enacted for expeditious adjudication of commercial disputes, the provisions therein prevail. Section 21 is a non-obstante provision conferring overriding effect on the Commercial Courts Act, which is enacted when the Trade Marks Act was in force. The provisions in the earlier enactment, if inconsistent with the subsequent enactment, pales into insignificance by virtue of the non obstante provision. The respondents also rely on the decisions of this Court.

6. Kandla Export Corporation and Anr. v. OCI Corporation and Anr., (2018) 14 SCC 715 was concerned with the question as to whether an appeal not maintainable under Section 50 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996 (Arbitration Act), would nonetheless be maintainable under Section 13(1) of the Commercial Courts Act. This Court specifically noticed that the amendment to the Arbitration Act and the Commercial Courts Act were brought into force on the same day. Section 13(1) by its proviso, specifically noticed Section 37 of the Arbitration Act but had not noticed Section 50 of the same enactment. Part II of the Arbitration Act is concerned with enforcement of Foreign Awards and Section 50 enables appeals only from orders; (a) refusing to refer to arbitration under Section 45 and (b) refusing to enforce an award under Section 48. In the present cas