Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 61226
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
A. BADHARUDEEN, J
ALEX G. MURICKEN – Appellant
Versus
MURICKENS MARKETING SYSTEM LLP – Respondent
Tr.P(C)/358/2022
C.HARIKUMAR, VIZZY GEORGE KOKKAT, SREEMUKUND R.SANDRA, SUNNY ARUN KUMAR M.A, B.KRISHNA MANI, DHANUJA M.S, N.V.SANDHYA
Amendments affecting jurisdiction are generally considered procedural and apply retrospectively to pending cases unless the statute explicitly states otherwise.
Headnote:
Jurisdiction - Transfer Petition - Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (Section 15(5)), Code of Civil Procedure (Section 24) - The court addressed the retrospective applicability of amendments raising pecuniary limits for jurisdiction, determining that pending cases remain under the jurisdiction of Commercial Courts unless explicitly stated otherwise.
Fact of the Case:
The defendant filed a transfer petition seeking to move a trademark infringement suit from the Commercial Court to the District Court, arguing lack of jurisdiction due to a recent amendment raising the pecuniary limit for commercial disputes.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the amendment to pecuniary limits was procedural and retrospective in nature, thus the Commercial Court retained its jurisdiction over cases filed before the amendment, including the current suit.
Issues: Whether the recent amendment raising the pecuniary limit for commercial disputes has retrospective effect and whether the Commercial Court retains jurisdiction over the current suit valued at less than the new limit.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that procedural amendments affecting jurisdiction do not apply to pending cases unless explicitly stated otherwise, affirming the Commercial Court's jurisdiction over the dispute in question.
Final Decision: The transfer petition was dismissed.
O R D E R
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 .
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 prospective in operation and
