IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment clarifies the jurisdictional boundaries between Commercial Courts and Commercial Divisions under the Commercial Courts Act, particularly for intellectual property disputes.

JUDGMENT :

(M. Sundar, J.) :

Preface:

Captioned 'Civil Miscellaneous Appeal' (hereinafter 'CMA' for the sake of brevity, clarity and convenience) has been filed in this 'Commercial Appellate Division' (hereinafter 'CAD' for the sake of brevity, clarity and convenience) on 21.08.2024 assailing an order dated 16.08.2024 made in C.O.S. SR.No.464 of 2024 on the file of the Principal Commercial Court at Egmore, Chennai.

2. To be noted, above referred 'Principal Commercial Court at Egmore, Chennai,' shall hereinafter be referred to as 'said Commercial Court' and above referred 16.08.2024 order, wherein and whereby a plaint was returned, inter alia by taking recourse to Order VII Rule 10 of 'the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908' (hereinafter referred to as 'CPC' for the sake of brevity, clarity and convenience) shall hereinafter be referred to as 'impugned order' for the sake of convenience and clarity.

Factual matrix in a nutshell:

3. One 'Tractors and Farm Equipment Ltd.' (hereinafter 'TAFE' for the sake of brevity, clarity and convenience) presented a plaint dated 08.07.2024 vide C.O.S. SR. No.464 of 2024 on the file of said Commercial Court. In this plaint, TAFE is the sole plaintiff and the lone defendant is 'Massey Ferguson Corp., United States of America' (hereinafter 'MFC' for the sake of brevity, clarity and convenience).

4. In this suit, there are five limbs of prayers and they are set out in paragraph 94 of the plaint. Limbs 1 and 2 pertain to prayers for declaration in favour of TAFE (against MFC) that certain trademarks have been abandoned by MFC as regards its rights in India and certain trademarks are distinctive qua TAFE in India. As regards limbs 3 and 4, injunctive reliefs qua interfering with use of certain trademarks by TAFE in India and restraining MFC from claiming or holding out as regards some trademarks are sought. Limb 5 is the usual residuary limb which seeks any further or other order/s that are deemed fit and proper by said Commercial Court. Limbs 1 and 2 have been valued at Rs.25 lakhs each and limbs 3 and 4 have been valued at Rs.20 lakhs each, totalling Rs. 90 lakhs.

5. There is no disputation or contestation that the plaint pertains to dispute arising out of Intellectual Property Rights relating to registered and unregistered trade marks. This means that it is a 'commercial dispute' within the meaning of Section 2(1)(c)(xvii) of 'Commercial Courts Act, 2015' (hereinafter referred to as 'CCA' for the sake of brevity, clarity and convenience). Likewise, the valuation paragraph is paragraph 90, the plaint is valued at Rs.90 lakhs in the manner set out in the earlier part of this narrative and therefore, value of subject matter of suit is of 'Specified Value' within the meaning of Section 2(1)(i) of CCA.

6. The plaint was presented in said Commercial Court by TAFE and MFC was on caveat. The said Commercial Court took recourse to Order VII Rule 10 of CPC owing to maintainability issue (to be noted, maintainability has to be decided only by the Court and the Registry does not have a say other than raising the maintainability issue), heard out learned counsel for TAFE as well as learned counsel for MFC which was on caveat and made the aforementioned impugned order returning the plaint for being presented in the Commercial Division of this Court. Aggrieved by this impugned order, TAFE, the sole plaintiff is on appeal as sole appellant before this Court.

7. This CAD is of the view that it is not necessary to dilate more on facts qua averments in the plaint, considering the limited legal perimeter within which legal drill at hand in captioned CAD appeal should perambulate. In other words or to put it differently, this CAD is now concerned with the question as to 'whether the impugned order made by said Commercial Court returning the plaint by taking recourse to Order VII Rule 10 of CPC is correct?' and the more pointed question as to 'whether the plaint ought to have been presented only in the Commercial Division and not i