JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J.

I. BACKGROUND

1. The present is an appeal challenging the order dated 28th January, 2022 passed by the ld. ADJ-03, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi in the suit bearing TM 1/2022 titled Vishal Pipes Limited v. Bhavya Pipe Industry, which is a suit seeking permanent injunction against infringement of registered trademark and copyright as also reliefs for passing off, delivery up, rendition of accounts, etc. for usage of the trademark `BPI', which is stated to be similar to the Appellant's/Plaintiff's (hereinafter "Plaintiff") trademark `VPL INDIA'. The grievance of the Plaintiff was that the ld. ADJ had refused to grant an ex parte order of injunction and had also failed to appoint a Local Commissioner for seizure of the alleged infringing goods.

2. When the matter was listed on 2nd March, 2022, the Court had noticed that while trademark disputes are being adjudicated at the District Level by Commercial Courts, the present order had been passed by the ld. ADJ who was not designated as a Commercial Court. Upon enquiring the reason for the same, the Court was informed that the suit is valued below Rs.3,00,000/- and thus, in view of the pecuniary provisions in the COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT , 2015 (hereinafter "CCA"), where the `specified value' for `commercial disputes' is 3,00,000/-, read with Section 134 the TRADE MARKS ACT , 1999 (hereinafter " TRADE MARKS ACT ") where a suit relating to trademarks is to be filed and heard only by a District Court, the suit was marked to a District Judge, not designated as a Commercial Court. The logical corollary of this is that the provisions of the CCA also are not made applicable to such a suit. The Court found this situation to be quite peculiar and, accordingly, passed the following order on 2nd March, 2022:

"10. Another peculiar question has also arisen in this suit. It is noticed that the matter arises out of an order passed by the ld. ADJ-03 in the Patiala House Courts Complex, Delhi, who is not designated as a "commercial court". On the previous date being 28th February, 2021, this Court raised a query as to whether a District Court which is not designated as a "commercial court" can hear IPR matters in view of the provisions of the COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT , 2015 and the Trademarks Act, 1999.

11. Today, Mr. Bansal, ld. Counsel, has made his submissions in this regard. Mr. Sidharth Chopra, ld. counsel who is present in Court, has also made his submissions. Ms. Swathi Sukumar, ld. Counsel, who was appointed as Amicus Curiae on the previous date, has also partly made her submissions.

12. Considering the importance of the matter, Mr. Akhil Sibal, ld. Senior Counsel who is present in Court, has also been requested to examine this issue and assist the Court on the next date. Other counsels, who wish to make submissions, are also permitted to make submissions in this regard."

3. The question that arises for consideration in this matter is as to whether IPR suits filed before District Courts, valued below Rs.3 lakhs, ought to be listed before and adjudicated upon by the District Judges (Commercial) under the provisions of the CCA or by District Judges (non-Commercial), as normal civil suits.

4. Owing to the importance of the issue that has arisen before the Court for consideration, various counsels as also the Amicus Curiae have made their submissions and filed written notes of arguments.

II. SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE PLAINTIFF

5. On behalf of the Plaintiff, submissions were made by Mr. S.K. Bansal, ld. counsel who represented the Plaintiff even before the District Court. The same are as under:

• There are a large number of IPR matters that are valued below Rs.3,00,000/- and placed before the ld. AJD (non-Commercial) for adjudication. Various orders showing the pendency of such cases before the ADJs are relied upon.
• Reliance is placed upon the provisions of the CCA, especially, the definition of `specified value' in Section 2(c)(xvii) read with Section 12 whic