IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Debangsu Basak And The Hon’ble Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi APOT 99 of 2025 With CS 126 of 2023 IA No. GA 1 of 2025 Ramji Lal Agarwal Vs.

Sourav Agarwal APOT 95 of 2025 Sourav Agarwal Vs.

Ramji Lal Agarwal For the appellant : Mr. Sabyasachi Chowdhury, Sr. Adv.

Mr. V.V.V. Shastry, Adv.

Mr. Rahul Poddar, Adv.

For the respondent : Mr. Anuj Singh, Adv.

Mr. Sourajit Dasgupta, Adv.

Mr. Varun Kothari, Adv.

Mr. Shayak Mitra, Adv.

Mr. Rupal Singh, Adv.

Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Adv.

Hearing concluded on : 03.11.2025 Judgment on : 14.11.2025 Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.:-

1. The two appeals are directed against judgment and order dated March 12, 2025 passed in respect of GA No 1 of 2023 and GA No. 2 of 2023 in CS No. 126 of 2023.

2. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned trial Court dismissed GA No 1 of 2023 filed in CS No. 126 of 2023 seeking grant of an interim order. By the self-same judgment and order the learned trial Court allowed GA No. 2 of 2023 filed in the said suit whereby, the suit was sought to be dismissed on the ground that the issues involved in the suit were of a commercial nature and as such only a court having been constituted under the provisions of Commercial Courts Act, was competent to decide on the issues involved in such suit.

3. Learned senior advocate for the appellant contended that the subject matter involved in the suit emanated out a family arrangement among the members of the family and as such, the same cannot fall within the expression of ‘Commercial Disputes’ as defined under the provisions of Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The learned trial Court was not justified in passing the impugned judgment and order holding the subject matter of the suit as commercial disputes.

4. It was also submitted by learned senior advocate for the appellant that the learned trial Court erred in arriving at a conclusion that the dispute with regard to use of the specific trade mark by the respondent fell under the definition of commercial disputes in relation to intellectual property and was covered under sub-sections (vii) and (xii) of Section 2 (1) (c) of the Act of 2015. In support of his contention, learned advocate for the appellant relied upon an unreported decision in IA No. GA-COM/2/2024 in CS (Com) No. 4 of 2023 (T. E. Thomson & Company Limited Vs. Swarnalata Chopra Nee Kapur & Another).

5. Learned senior advocate for the appellant further submitted that while passing the impugned judgment and order, learned trial Judge overlooked the fact that the respondent was carrying on business using the goodwill of family business, in complete violation of the terms of family arrangement entered into between the family members.

6. Learned Senior advocate for the appellant also submitted that the learned trial Judge failed to appreciate that an order of ad-interim injunction was passed at the initial stage where the learned trial Court was satisfied with the prima facie case made out by the appellants. The respondent carried an appeal from such order being APOT 247 of 2023, which was dismissed. According to learned advocate for the appellants, the points raised before learned Judge was barred by the principles of res-judicata. Nevertheless, the learned trial Court passed the impugned order without considering that the issues raised before it were barred by the principles of res-judicata.

7. In support of the proposition that the subject matter involved in the suit emanated out of a family arrangement which cannot be considered within the purview of ‘Commercial Disputes’, learned senior advocate for the appellant relied upon (2006) 4 Supreme Court Cases 658 (Hari Shankar Singhania and Others Vs. Gaur Hari Singhania and Others).

8. The learned advocate for the appellant also contended that the learned trial Court erred in passing the impugned judgment and order placing reliance upon the decision reported in (2020) 15 Supreme Court Cases 585 (Ambal