Ramesh Ranganathan, J.

1. Com.TA No.3 of 2017 in Com.O.S.No.43 of 2017 has been transferred to the High Court from the Commercial Court i.e., the XXIV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Com.O.S.No.43 of 2017 was filed to restrain the defendant from infringing Patent No.265920 granted to the plaintiff-company under the Patents Act, 1970.

2. The jurisdiction of the Commercial Court was invoked, by the plaintiff in Com.O.S.No.43 of 2017, as the value of the Suit exceeded the specified value of Rs.1.00 Crore. The defendant in Com.O.S. No.43 of 2017 filed a counter-claim, along with their written statement, under Sections 104 and 107(i) r/w. Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970 and Order 8 Rule 6-A CPC. They filed I.A.No.167 of 2017 in Com.O.S.No.43 of 2017 requesting the Commercial Court to transfer Com.O.S.No.43 of 2017, along with the counter-claim filed by them, to the High Court.

3. In his order, in I.A.No.167 of 2017 in Com.O.S.No.43 of 2017 dated 01.06.2017, the Learned Commercial Court Judge i.e., the XXIV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad observed that he had lost jurisdiction on a counter-claim being filed by the respondent in view of Section 104 of the Patents Act; the decision in Low Heat Driers (P) Ltd v. Biju George, made it clear that the District Court had no power to decide any interlocutory applications once it transfers the petition to the High Court under the proviso to Section 104 of the Patents Act; a similar view was taken by the Allahabad High Court in Standard Glass Beads Factory v. Dhar ; and the Gujarat High Court in Gopal Glass Works Ltd. v. IAG Company Ltd ; and, hence, the Suit was being transmitted to the High Court.

4. Com.T.A.No.3 of 2017 was listed before us, the Commercial Appellate Division (a Division Bench of the High Court). Sri Ramesh B. Vishwanathula, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, contended that the matter should be listed before the Commercial Division of the High Court (Single Judge), and not the Commercial Appellate Division; unlike Section 7 of the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015, (hereinafter called the 2015 Act), its first proviso enables all suits and applications, relating to commercial disputes stipulated by an Act to lie in a Court not inferior to a District Court and filed or pending on the original side of the High Court, to be heard and disposed of by the Commercial Division of the High Court; while Section 7 relates to commercial disputes filed in a High Court having ordinary original civil jurisdiction, the first proviso thereto refers to all suits relating to commercial disputes; and, as a dispute arising out of a patent is a commercial dispute under Section 2[c](xvii) of the 2015 Act, Com.T.A. No.3 of 2017 is required to be heard and disposed of by the Commercial Division of the High Court.

5. On the other hand Smt. Kota Kalpana, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the defendant, would contend that, while Com.O.S.No.43 of 2017 had rightly been transferred to the High Court (on the defendant filing a counter-claim along with their written statement) in view of the proviso to Section 104 of the Patents Act, 1970, the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad, for the State of Telangana and for the State of Andhra Pradesh, does not exercise ordinary original civil jurisdiction except in cases of commercial disputes arising out of issues relating to admiralty and maritime laws; consequently a commercial dispute, arising under the Patents Act, is required to be heard by the High Court; and neither the Commercial Division nor the Commercial Appellate Division of the High Court can exercise jurisdiction over such matters.

6. Section 104 of the Patents Act, 1970 stipulates that no Suit for a declaration under Section 105 or for any relief under Section 106 or for infringement of a patent shall be instituted in any Court inferior to a District Court having jurisdiction to try th