IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ALOK AWASTHI MISC. PETITION No. 4539 of 2025 DILEEP BAKLIWAL PROP POONAM MARKETING THROUGH POWER OF ATTORNEYU MS SONAM GEDA Versus MOHAN SINGH PANWAR Appearance:

Shri Siddharth Singh - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Bhaskar Agrawal - Advocate for the respondent.

Reserved on : 09.10.2025 Pronounced on : 11.12.2025 ORDER

1. The petitioner/defendant has filed this present petition being aggrieved by the order dated 16.07.2025 passed by the XIth District Judge, Indore in RCS No. 1600029-A/2014 whereby application under Section 15(2) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, seeking transfer of the pending civil suit to the Commercial Court, Indore was rejected.

2. The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction alleging infringement of his registered trademark “Shri Ankit” by the petitioner/defendant, who claims prior adoption and continuous use of the trademark “Ankit” since 1988 in relation to pipes and allied products.

3. The petitioner/defendant has filed a written statement-cum-

counterclaim denying the averments made by the plaintiff in the plaint, asserted prior proprietary rights, and sought injunctive relief against the respondent for use of a deceptively similar mark.

4. The learned Trial Court dismissed the petitioner’s application for transfer on the sole ground that the suit valuation, as cursorily stated in plaint's title at Rs.55,600/-, fell below the statutory “specified value” threshold of Rs. 3,00,000/- required to invoke the Commercial Court’s jurisdiction. The petitioner contends that the valuation is arbitrary, unsupported by pleadings or evidence, and fails to account for the intrinsic and market value of the trademark, which, by virtue of its commercial exploitation and substantial sales turnover, exceeds the statutory threshold. The petition thus seeks quashing of the impugned order and transfer of the suit to the Commercial Court, Indore, for adjudication in accordance with law.

5. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that all suits pertaining to the enforcement, infringement, exploitation, or protection of rights arising under the laws relating to intellectual property, including but not limited to those concerning patents, trademarks, copyrights, designs, geographical indications, and allied rights, are, by express legislative mandate under Section 2(1)(c)(xvii) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, deemed to be “commercial disputes” and are, therefore, amenable to the exclusive jurisdictional framework established thereunder. It is also contended that learned Trial Court has manifestly erred in failing to appreciate that the respondent/plaintiff has not undertaken any cogent or bona fide valuation of the suit. The absence of any substantive basis renders the said valuation wholly illusory and devoid of legal sanctity. In such circumstances, it was incumbent upon the learned Trial Court to independently ascertain the real and correct valuation of the subject-matter in dispute for the purpose of determining the “specified value” as contemplated under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, and thereby adjudicate upon the question of jurisdiction.

6. He has also submitted that “specified value,” within the meaning of Section 2(1)(i) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, is to be ascertained not merely with reference to the monetary value of the immediate relief sought in the suit, but also by taking into account the market value, commercial significance, and enforceable worth of the intangible right forming the very subject matter of the dispute. Accordingly, in intellectual property rights matters, the specified value must necessarily reflect the intrinsic and market- driven value of the proprietary right in question, and not be confined to a narrow computation of the quantifiable relief claimed. On the aforesaid grounds, it is prayed that the impugned order dated 16.07.2025 be quashed and present petition