Point of Law: Proceedings instituted before the commencement of 2019 Act, shall continue before the consumer forums corresponding to those under the 1986 Act.

JUDGMENT :

This is a transfer petition filed by the defendant in C.S.No.1/2021 pending before the Commercial Court (Principal Sub-Court), Kottayam under Section 15(5) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 read with Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure to transfer the said Suit to the District Court, Kottayam, having jurisdiction. The plaintiffs in the above Suit are the respondents herein.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri C.Harikumar as well as Sri B.Krishna Mani, appearing for respondents 1 and 2.

3. Short facts: The petitioner is the defendant in Commercial Suit No.1 of 2021 on the file of the Commercial Court (Principal Sub Court), Kottayam. The suit was one filed alleging Trademark infringement and passing off and for a permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendant from using the marks MG AND MURICKENS GROUP, MURICKENS GROUP, MURICKENS, FLYLINE, MG with or without logo, MURICKENS TRADING COMPANY or any other deceptively similar mark and for accounts of profit and damages. The jurisdictional value of the suit is Rs.6,01,000/-(Six Lakh and One thousand only). The dispute in the suit mainly centers around the right of usage of their family name “Murickens” as trademark.

4. The suit was originally filed and numbered as O.S.No.1 of 2019 before the Additional District Court-IV, Kottayam. While pending so, citing Government Order (Ms.) No.51/2020/Home dated 24.02.2020 published in Kerala Gazette (Extraordinary) No.783 dated 05.03.2020 notifying the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (Act 4 of 2016) to have jurisdiction over commercial matters having a pecuniary value of Rs.3 lakh and above, the learned District Court, vide order dated 15.12.2020, transferred the case to the Commercial Court, Kottayam in terms of Section 15 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

5. The further contention raised by the petitioner is that as per Annexure A3 Government Order, pecuniary value of a Commercial Suit to be tried by a Commercial Court has been enhanced to Rs.10 lakh and above w.e.f 18.03.2022. Hence the Commercial Court ceased to have jurisdiction in this Suit since the valuation in the present Suit is only Rs.6,01,000/-(below Rs.10 lakh).

6. It is contended further that though the question of jurisdiction was raised before the Commercial Court, during final hearing, the Commercial Court, without passing a speaking order, held that Commercial Court is having jurisdiction. On the above grounds, transfer is sought for.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner zealously urged that in view of Annexure-A3 Government Order came into force w.e.f 18.03.2022, the pecuniary value of a Suit involved in commercial dispute is Rs.10 lakh and above and therefore the commercial courts have no jurisdiction to entertain a Suit having valuation of Rs.6,01,000/-. Therefore, C.S.1/2021 shall go back to the District Court, where it was originally filed under the Trademarks Act, 1999. The learned counsel has given emphasis to Annexure-A1, the copy of plaint, Annexure-A2, G.O(Ms).No.51/2020/Home dated 24.2.2020 and Annexure-A3 G.O(Ms).No.53/2020/Home dated 18.03.2022 while raising this contention. He has placed decisions reported in [(2019) 14 SCC 526], Om Prakash Agarwal Since Deceased Through Legal Representatives & Ors. v. Vishan Dayal Rajpoot & anr., [2017 SCC OnLine Raj 4240 : AIR 2018 Raj 67], Neelkanth Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., Jodhpur & Ors. v. Neelkanth Minechem Partnership Firm, Jodhpur, [2021 SCC OnLine Cal 35 : AIR 2021 (NOC 524) 194 : (2021) 1 Cal LT 72], Swadha Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Nabarun Bhattacharjee & Ors., [2021 KHC 3597], Kairali Aviation Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore v. Cochin International Airport Ltd. and finally latest judgment of the Apex Court reported in [(2022) 2 SCC 161], Neena Aneja & anr. v. Jai Prakash Associates Limited, in support of his argument.

8. Repelling this contention, the learned counsel for the respondents vehemently argued that when a statute is amended without giving retrospective effect, the same is prospecti