Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench
Bardana Super Hi-Tech Agree Tonic Pvt. ... vs Amcons Ipl (Agro Industrial Expansion) ... on 24 April, 2026
Author: Sanjay Dhar
Bench: Sanjay Dhar
Item No.6
Regular List
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
Pronounced on:24.04.2026
Uploaded on: 29.04.2026
Whether the operative part or
full judgment is pronounced:
Full
CM No. 1679/2026
IN CS(OS) No. 1/2026
CM Nos. 1441/2026, 1442/2026 1443/2026
BARDANA SUPER HI-TECH AGREE TONIC PVT. LTD.
...PLAINTIFF(S)
Through: - Mr. Danish Majid Dar, Advocate.
Vs.
AMCONS IPL (AGRO INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION) PVT. LTD.
...DEFENDANT(S)
Through: - Mr. Shariq J. Reyaz, Advocate , with
Mr. Shah Ashiq Hussain, Advocate.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE
ORDER(ORAL)
1. On the last date of hearing, learned counsel for the defendants had raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the suit on the ground that the suit ought to have been filed by the plaintiff before the concerned Commercial Court instead of filing the same directly before the Commercial Division of this Court. In this regard, reliance has been placed by the defendants upon the provisions contained in Section 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Page 1 of 10
2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record of the case.
3. The plaintiff through the medium of present suit has sought a number of reliefs including a decree of permanent injunction against the defendants restraining them from manufacturing, processing, packaging, labelling, re- labelling, advertising, promoting, displaying, offering for sale, selling etc. manures or allied goods under the impugned mark "SUPER AGRE-TECH" or any other mark similar to aforesaid mark including "SUPER HI-TECH AGRO TONIC", "HI-TECH AGRO TONIC", "BARDANA SUPER HI- TECH AGROO TONIC" and allied marks.
4. The contention of learned counsel for the defendants is that as per Section of 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure, every suit has to be instituted in the court of lowest grade competent to try it. He has contended that even though the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and High Court is vested with ordinary original civil jurisdiction and a Commercial Division has been established in the said Court but, because the Commercial Courts at the level of District Judges stand established in all the Districts of Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh pursuant to coming into force of Commercial Courts Act, 2015, having concurrent Page 2 of 10 jurisdiction with the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, therefore, in terms of Section 15 of the Civil Procedure Code, it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to approach the court of lowest grade and not to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court directly.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the plaintiff has contended that the present suit pertains to intellectual property rights relating to trade marks which cannot be tried by a court inferior to a District Judge and in a case where the High Court is vested with ordinary original civil jurisdiction, the High Court is included within the expression "District Court". It has been contended that in view of the provisions contained in Proviso to Section 7 of the Commercial Courts Act, the present suit has to be heard and decided by the Commercial Division of this High Court. Learned counsel, while relying upon the judgment of Madras High Court in the case of Chennai Ananda Bhavan vs. M/S Adyar Ananda Bhavan (A. No.4354 of 2019 in C.S. No.982 of 2017 decided on 23.09.2019), has contended that the suits arising out of a Copy Rights Act, Designs Act, Patents Act and Trade Mark Act, lie only to the High Court.
6. There is no dispute to the fact that the subject matter of the suit qualifies to be a commercial dispute within the Page 3 of 10 meaning of Section 2(c)(xviii) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. It is also not in dispute that the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, has been made applicable to the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir pursuant to the J&K Reorganization Act, 2019, and vide S.O.47 dated 4th February, 2020, various courts of the level of District Judge have been designated as Commercial Courts. In fact, all the Principal District Judges of the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir excluding the Principal District Judges of Srinagar and Jammu, have been designated as Commercial Courts in terms of aforesaid S.O. to deal with suits involving commercial disputes of specified value. It is also not in dispute that the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh is vested with ordinary original civil jurisdiction and for dealing with cases relating to commercial disputes, Commercial Divisions have been established in both Jammu as well as Srinagar wings of the High Court. The Commercial Courts established at District level and the Commercial Divisions established at the High Court level are vested with concurrent jurisdiction with regard to suits pertaining to commercial matters.
7. The question that arises for determination is as to whether Section 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which provides for institution of the suit in the court of lowest grade competent to try it, is applicable to the present case. Page 4 of 10
8. In the judgment of Madras High Court, that has been relied upon by learned counsel for the plaintiff, it has been held that the High Court exercising ordinary original civil jurisdiction is alone vested with power to hear and deal with the suits arising out of Copy Right Act, Designs Act, Patents Act, Trademark Act. In fact, a Full Bench of the Madras High Court in the case of Ramamirtham vs. Rama Film Services, AIR 1951 Mad. 93, has held that Section 15 of the CPC does not apply to the said High Court in exercise of its original civil jurisdiction, notwithstanding that it is not one of the excepted Sections mentioned in Section 120 of the Code.
9. While taking the aforesaid view, Madras High Court was dealing with the issue vis-à-vis jurisdiction of City Civil Courts established under Madras Civil City Courts Act, 1892. It is pertinent to note here that Section 16 of the said Act, while saving civil ordinary jurisdiction of the High Court provides that if any suit or other proceeding is instituted in the High Court, which, in the opinion of the Judge who tries the same, ought to have been instituted in Civil Court, no costs would be allowed to a successful plaintiff but a successful defendant would be allowed the costs as between attorney and client. It is in the light of the said provision, that Madras High Court has held that Section 16 of the City Page 5 of 10 Civil Courts Act does not bar jurisdiction of the High Court to try a suit which can otherwise be tried by a City Civil Court but it only imposes a condition that in such cases no costs shall be allowed to a successful plaintiff though a successful defendant would be allowed the costs. It is in those circumstances that Madras High Court has held that Section 15 of the CPC does not apply to the said High Court and a suit, which otherwise could have been filed before the City Civil Court, can also be entertained by the High Court with the caveat that the plaintiff in the suit cannot claim costs.
10. In the present case, we are not dealing with a situation where Commercial Courts established at District level in the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir have been constituted under any special enactment which preserves jurisdiction of the High Court to deal with commercial suits in derogation of the provisions contained in Section 15 of the CPC. Therefore, the judgment delivered by Madras High Court in Chennai Ananda Bhavan's case (supra), which also deals with the issue in the light of provisions contained in Section 16 of Madras City Civil Courts Act, is not applicable to the facts of the present case.
11. Section 120 of the CPC clearly provides that the provisions contained in Sections 16, 17 and 20 of the Code Page 6 of 10 would not apply to the High Courts in exercise of their original civil jurisdiction. If the legislature intended to exclude the applicability of Section 15 of the Code to the High Courts exercising original civil jurisdiction, then the same would have been clearly mentioned in Section 120 of the Code, meaning thereby the legislature never intended to exclude the applicability of Section 15 of the CPC to those High Courts which are exercising civil jurisdiction. This includes the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh. Therefore, Section 15 of the CPC is definitely applicable to the proceedings before the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh.
12. Section 15 of the Civil Procedure Code clearly lays down that every suit shall be instituted in the court of lowest grade competent to try it. A suit for infringement of trademark or for passing off can be filed in the Court of District Judge and not in any court inferior to the District Judge. The same, on account of the provisions contained in the Commercial Courts Act, comes within the definition of a 'commercial dispute' and, as such, is eligible to be tried by a Commercial Court which is not inferior to the level of a District Judge. The instant suit, therefore, can very well be tried by the Commercial Court at the level of District Judge having jurisdiction and as per Section 15 of the CPC, the same could Page 7 of 10 not have been instituted before the Commercial Division of the High Court which, though competent to try it, is of a higher grade than a Commercial Court of District Judge level.
13. The provisions contained in Section 15 of the CPC are aimed at reducing the burden of higher courts and preventing the higher courts from being flooded with suits that can effectively be handled by the lower grade courts. The provision ensures that litigation is conducted locally making it easier and less expensive for parties and witnesses to attend the proceedings.
14. So far as the contention of learned counsel for the plaintiff based upon the provisions contained in first proviso to Section 7 of the Commercial Courts Act is concerned, the same is also misconceived because the said provision applies when a suit relating to commercial dispute is filed or pending before original side of the High Court after the establishment of Commercial Division of the High Court. The said provision does not exclude in any manner the applicability of Section 15 of the CPC.
15. Apart from the above, at present the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh is ill equipped to handle the trial of civil suits as the legal framework available in the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court Rules, 1999, is Page 8 of 10 sketchy, inasmuch as it does not deal with all aspects of proceedings of a civil suit. If we have a look at the Rules which are presently in vogue, the same provide the legal framework only for recording of evidence and pronouncement of judgments, decrees and orders. No other aspect of the proceedings relating to a civil suit is provided for in the Rules presently in vogue so far as the same relate to original civil jurisdiction of the High Court. In these circumstances, it will be more convenient for the litigants to get their suits tried before the Civil/Commercial courts of lower grade who are otherwise competent to try these suits.
16. In view of the foregoing discussion, the objection raised by learned counsel for the defendants is sustained. However, instead of exercising the option of returning the plaint in terms of Order VII Rule 10 of the CPC, this Court, in order to save time and to avoid inconvenience to the parties, opts to exercise its powers under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code, and directs the transfer of the suit to Commercial Court (Principal District Judge), Pulwama, which is competent to try this suit, for its disposal under law. The parties are directed to appear before the said Court on 15.05.2026. It shall be open to the transferee court to vacate/modify or confirm the interim orders passed by this Page 9 of 10 Court in the present suit notwithstanding the fact that the transferee court is inferior to this Court.
17. The Registry is directed to transmit the record of the suit to the transferee court along with a copy of this order well before the date fixed in the case.
(Sanjay Dhar) Judge SRINAGAR 24.04.2026 "Bhat Altaf-Secretary"
Whether the Order is speaking: YES
Whether the Order is reportable: YES/NO
Page 10 of 10