JUDGMENT :

The Learned Single Judge, vide common order dated 09.10.2025, disposed of C.S.No.163 of 2018 and (T).O.P.(TM).No.32 of 2023.

2. The rectification petition filed before the IPAB against the appellant's trademark was transferred to the High Court pursuant to the abolition of the IPAD and renumbered as (T).O.P.(TM).No.32 of 2023. The petition was tagged along with the suit in C.S.No.163 of 2018, filed under Order VII Rule 1 read with 151 of C.P.C., and Order IV Rule 1 of Madras High Court Original Side Rules, seeking injunction restraining infringement of the appellant's mark, the Learned Single Judge dismissed the suit and allowed the rectification application filed by the respondents.

3. Being aggrieved, the appellant has preferred L.P.A.SR.No.179563 of 2025 against the dismissal of C.S.No.163 of 2018, which is pending in the Registry for numbering. Whereas, in respect of the appeal filed against the order passed in T.O.P(TM).No.32 of 2023, allowing the rectification applications filed by the respondents, the Registry has returned the papers stating that how the appeal is maintainable, against the order which is not appealable under Order 43 Rule 1 of C.P.C., as enumerated under Section 13 (1A) of Commercial Courts Act, 2015, which reads as below:

“13. Appeals from decrees of Commercial Courts and Commercial Divisions.-

(1A) Any person aggrieved by the judgment or order of a Commercial Court at the level of District Judge exercising original civil jurisdiction or, as the case may be, Commercial Division of a High Court may appeal to the Commercial Appellate Division of that High Court within a period of sixty days from the date of the judgment or order:

Provided that an appeal shall lie from such orders passed by a Commercial Division or a Commercial Court that are specifically enumerated under Order XLIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) as amended by this Act and section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996)”

4. The Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that in V.R.Holdings Pvt Ltd vs. Hero Investcorp Limited and another, reported in 2023 SCC Online Del 4673, has held that the embargo under Section 13(1A) of Commercial Courts Act applies only to orders passed in suits filed under the Code of Civil Procedure and it does not apply to orders passed under special Statute, when jurisdiction is assumed by the Court and conferred under statute.

5. He submitted that the order of the Delhi High Court referred above was confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary Nos.46199 of 2023, preferred by Hero Investcorp Limited vs. V.R.Holdings Pvt Ltd. While dismissing the Special Leave Petition, the Supreme Court granted liberty to the parties to raise all objections after the appeal before the High Court is finally disposed. The order on an application for rectification under the Trademarks Act was passed by the Learned Single Judge under the Intellectual Property Division and not under the Commercial Courts Division. Therefore, the order passed by the Learned Single Judge in (T).O.P.(TM).No.32 of 2023 is appealable, being a final order. Hence, the appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent is maintainable.

6. We are in total agreement with the above submission. The order which is final in nature and arising out of statute upon which the High Court has assumed jurisdiction in view of the Tribunals Reforms Act under which the IPAB was abolished, the prohibition under Section 13 (1A) of the Commercial Act, shall not stand in the way. The appellant has a right to challenge the order passed by the Learned Single Judge through an intra-court appeal by invoking the powers under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.

7. Accordingly, the Registry is directed to number the appeal, if it is otherwise in order.