1. Cross-suits between parties concerning trademark infringement and passing off were filed in separate jurisdictions, necessitating a transfer to a single court for trial. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(SC) 1302
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.V.N. BHATTI, N.V. ANJARIA, JJ.
M/S The Supreme Industries Limited – Petitioner
VERSUS
M/S Supremo India Private Limited – Respondents
Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 3594 of 2025 With Transfer Petition (Civil) No.175 of 2026
Decided On : 28-10-2026
Important Points
The Court may exercise its discretion to transfer cross-suits involving the same subject matter from different jurisdictions to a single competent court when the parties agree on the necessity of a unified trial to ensure judicial efficiency.
Subject
Civil Law - Intellectual Property
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Trade Marks Act, 1999 - Section 2(1)(zg) - Transfer of suits - Cross-suits for trademark infringement and passing off - Where parties are embroiled in simultaneous suits in different jurisdictions concerning the same trademark dispute and agree that both matters should be tried before one Court, the Court may, in the exercise of its jurisdiction and discretion, transfer both suits to a single competent court to ensure a consolidated trial. (Para 6)
Facts of the case:
The parties are embroiled in cross-suits concerning trademark infringement and passing off. One suit was filed in a District Commercial Court seeking permanent injunction and damages, while another was filed in a High Court seeking permanent injunction, rendition of accounts, damages, and a declaration of the mark as well-known. Both parties filed transfer petitions seeking to move the opposing party's suit to their respective jurisdiction.
Findings of Court:
The Court observed that the disputes center on the same trademark infringement issues. While the parties agreed that both matters should be tried by a single court, they differed on the location. The Court exercised its discretion to transfer both suits to a neutral City Civil Court.
Issues: Whether cross-suits regarding trademark infringement pending in different jurisdictions should be transferred to a single court.
Ratio Decidendi: In the interest of judicial efficiency, where parties agree that cross-suits should be tried together but disagree on the forum, the Court can exercise its discretion to transfer all such matters to one competent court to avoid conflicting judgments.
Result: Transfer petitions allowed.
Facts of the case:
The parties are embroiled in cross-suits concerning trademark infringement and passing off. One suit was filed in a District Commercial Court seeking permanent injunction and damages, while another was filed in a High Court seeking permanent injunction, rendition of accounts, damages, and a declaration of the mark as well-known. Both parties filed transfer petitions seeking to move the opposing party's suit to their respective jurisdiction.
Findings of Court:
The Court observed that the disputes center on the same trademark infringement issues. While the parties agreed that both matters should be tried by a single court, they differed on the location. The Court exercised its discretion to transfer both suits to a neutral City Civil Court.
Issues: Whether cross-suits regarding trademark infringement pending in different jurisdictions should be transferred to a single court.
Ratio Decidendi: In the interest of judicial efficiency, where parties agree that cross-suits should be tried together but disagree on the forum, the Court can exercise its discretion to transfer all such matters to one competent court to avoid conflicting judgments.
Result: Transfer petitions allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the Parties : Mr. Aditya Soni- 2958, AOR Ms. S. Janani, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sudarshan Bansal, Adv. Mr. Utsav Jain- 4077, AOR Mr. Shivang Bansal, Adv. Ms. Namrata Jain, Adv. Mr. Vijay Soni, Adv. Mr. Nishant Kumar, Adv.
For the Parties : Mr. Aditya Soni- 2958, AOR Ms. S. Janani, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sudarshan Bansal, Adv. Mr. Utsav Jain- 4077, AOR Mr. Shivang Bansal, Adv. Ms. Namrata Jain, Adv. Mr. Vijay Soni, Adv. Mr. Nishant Kumar, Adv.
Table of Contents
2. Parties disputed the appropriate venue for consolidated proceedings, each requesting transfer to their preferred jurisdiction while generally agreeing that both matters should be heard by one court. (Para 6 )
3. The court observed that parties were ad idem regarding the necessity of consolidating the cross-suits before a single court for efficient adjudication. (Para 6 )
4. The court exercises its discretionary jurisdiction to consolidate related cross-suits between the same parties into one jurisdiction to ensure unified adjudication of the claims. (Para 6 )
5. The court ordered both commercial suits to be transferred to the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad for joint trial. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 )
6. Does the court have the authority to consolidate related suits filed by the same parties in different jurisdictions?
Yes, by exercising its jurisdiction and discretion, the court may transfer cross-suits pending in different courts to a single court of competent jurisdiction to ensure both matters are tried together. (Para 6 )
JUDGMENT
S.V.N. BHATTI, J.
1. We have heard the learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul and Ms. S. Janani, for the parties. The Transfer Petitions are between the same parties and are therefore disposed of by this Order.
TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) NO.3594 OF 2025
2. The Transfer Petition is at the instance of M/s Supreme Industries Limited. The prayer in the Transfer Petition reads as follows:
- “(i) Transfer the Commercial Suit filed by the Respondent being CS(COMM) No. 134 of 2025 titled "M/s Supremo India Private Limited vs. M/s The Supreme Industries Limited", presently pending before the Court of the Learned District Judge (Commercial)/Indore, Madhya Pradesh, to a Court of competent jurisdiction at New Delhi;”
3. M/S The Supreme Industries Limited is the Defendant in CS (Comm) No. 134 of 2025 before the Court of the District Judge (Commercial), Indore. M/s Supremo India Private Limited filed CS (Comm) No. 134 of 2025. The prayers in the Plaint, briefly stated, are as follows:
- a) Permanent Injunction restraining the Defendants from manufacturing, advertising, promoting, etc., or from doing any act or taking any action involving the impugned trademark ‘SUPREME’.
b) Restraining the defendants from disposing of or dealing with their assets and directing them to disclose their assets.
c) Order the impugned goods to be restrained, disabled, and removed from third-party interactive e-commerce platforms.
d) Pass a decree awarding damages of Rs. 15,00,000/- (fifteen lakhs only) in favour of the plaintiffs.
TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) NO.175 OF 2026
4. M/s Supremo India Private Limited is the Petitioner. The Transfer Petition seeks the following reliefs:
- “Transfer the Commercial suit bearing number 1294/2025 titled "Supreme Industries Limited vs Supremo India Private Limited and Anr." currently pending before the High Court of Delhi to the Court of Learned District Judge (Commercial Court), Indore, Madhya Pradesh or to any other competent court in Indore;”
5. M/s The Supreme Industries Limited filed CS (Comm) No. 1294 of 2025 before the High Court of Delhi. The gist of the prayer in CS (Comm) No. 1294 of 2025 is set out below:
a) Permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from infringing the Plaintiff’s registered trademark by using, manufacturing, selling, exporting, importing, offering for sale, distributing, and advertising goods bearing a similar or identical mark in virtual and physical marketplaces;
b) Permanent injunction restraining the Defendants and persons claiming through and/or under them from passing off the Plaintiff’s trademark by using, manufacturing, selling, exporting, importing, offering for sale, distributing, or advertising goods bearing a similar or identical mark that may cause confusion and/or deception;
c) Permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from infringing Plaintiff’s registered copyright in the label/logo ‘SUPREME’;
d) Permanent injunction restraining the Defendants and persons claiming through and/or under them from taking unfair advantage of the distinctive character and reputation of Plaintiff’s mark, thereby diluting and tarnishing their trademark;
e) Rendition of accounts of profits earned illegally through unauthorised use of Plaintiff’s registered trademark;
f) Order of delivery and destruction of infringing products of the Defendants;
g) Damages amounting to Rs. 2,00,01,000/-payable jointly and severally by the Defendants;
h) Declaration of ‘SUPREME’ as a well-known mark under S.2(1)(zg) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
6. The dispute between the parties centres on trademark infringement, etc. In effect, the commercial suits or cross-suits seek prayers restraining the Defendant from causing breach of trademark, etc. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respective parties insisted that the other matter be transferred to the place where his/her client has instituted the Suit. The Counsel are at least in ad idem that both matters be tried before one Court. Though they suggest a few alternative p
