Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dileep Bakliwal Prop Poonam Marketing ... vs Mohan Singh Panwar on 11 December, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:36415
1 MP-4539-2025
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, Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINDESH RAIKWAR Signing time: 11-Dec-25 7:33:03 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:36415 2 MP-4539-2025 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINDESH RAIKWAR Signing time: 11-Dec-25 7:33:03 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:36415 3 MP-4539-2025 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 be allowed.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposes the prayer and prays for its dismissal.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order.
9. Learned trial Court has rejected the application relying on Section 2(1)(i) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 which clearly provides that a commercial dispute shall have the value of the subject matter at least 03 Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINDESH RAIKWAR Signing time: 11-Dec-25 7:33:03 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:36415 4 MP-4539-2025 lakhs or more. Hence, cases valued at 03 lakh or such higher value can be tried and decided by the Commercial Courts only. In the present application, the defendant has raised an objection regarding the maintainability of the present suit on the ground that the dispute involved in the present case is a commercial one, and therefore, this court has got no jurisdiction to hear and try it. This court does not agree with this argument as a- dispute can be commercial dispute only when the valuation of the subject matter would be atleast 03 lakhs or more. In the present suit, the plaintiff has valued the subject matter of the suit at Rs. 55,600/-, which is lesser than Rs. 03 lakhs. Hence, it can't be said that the dispute involved in the present case is exclusively triable by Commercial Courts as it is barred by section 2 of the Act of 2015. Thus, objection 'raised by the defendant in respect of maintainability of the present suit being devoid of merit is disallowed.
10. Before dealing with the case at hand, it would be apposite to deal with the relevant provision. For ready reference Section 2 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 is reproduced below :-
"(1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,--
(a) "Commercial Appellate Division" means the Commercial Appellate Division in a High Court constituted under sub-section (1) of section 5;
(b) "Commercial Court" means the Commercial Court constituted under sub-section (1) of section 3;
(c) "commercial dispute" means a dispute arising out of--
(i) ordinary transactions of merchants, bankers, Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINDESH RAIKWAR Signing time: 11-Dec-25 7:33:03 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:36415 5 MP-4539-2025 financiers and traders such as those relating to mercantile documents, including enforcement and interpretation of such documents;
(ii) export or import of merchandise or services;
(iii) issues relating to admiralty and maritime law;
(iv) transactions relating to aircraft, aircraft engines, aircraft equipment and helicopters, including sales, leasing and financing of the same;
(v) carriage of goods;
(vi) construction and infrastructure contracts, including tenders;
(vii) agreements relating to immovable property used exclusively in trade or commerce;
(viii) franchising agreements;
(ix) distribution and licensing agreements;
(x) management and consultancy agreements;
(xi) joint venture agreements;
(xii) shareholders agreements;
(xiii) subscription and investment agreements pertaining to the services industry including outsourcing services and financial services;
(xiv) mercantile agency and mercantile usage;
(xv) partnership agreements;
(xvi) technology development agreements; (xvii) intellectual property rights relating to registered and unregistered trademarks, copyright, patent, design, domain names, geographical indications and semiconductor integrated circuits; (xviii) agreements for sale of goods or provision of services;
(xix) exploitation of oil and gas reserves or other natural resources including electromagnetic spectrum; (xx) insurance and re-insurance;Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINDESH RAIKWAR Signing time: 11-Dec-25 7:33:03 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:36415 6 MP-4539-2025 (xxi) contracts of agency relating to any of the above; and (xxii) such other commercial disputes as may be notified by the Central Government.
Explanation.--A commercial dispute shall not cease to be a commercial dispute merely because
(a) it also involves action for recovery of immovable property or for realisation of monies out of immovable property given as security or involves any other relief pertaining to immovable property;
(b) one of the contracting parties is the State or any of its agencies or instrumentalities, or a private body carrying out public functions;
(d) "Commercial Division" means the Commercial Division in a High Court constituted under sub-section (1) of section 4;
(e) "District Judge" shall have the same meaning as assigned to it in clause (a) of article 236 of the Constitution of India;
(f) "document" means any matter expressed or described upon any substance by means of letters, figures or marks, or electronic means, or by more than one of those means, intended to be used, or which may be used, for the purpose of recording that matter;
(g) "notification" means a notification published in the Official Gazette and the expression "notify" with its cognate meanings and grammatical variations shall be construed accordingly;
(h) "Schedule" means the Schedule appended to the Act; and
(i) "Specified Value", in relation to a commercial dispute, shall mean the value of the subject-matter in respect of a suit as determined in accordance with Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINDESH RAIKWAR Signing time: 11-Dec-25 7:33:03 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:36415 7 MP-4539-2025 section 12 which shall not be less than three lakh rupees or such higher value, as may be notified by the Central Government."
(emphasis supplied)
11. In the case of Vishal Pipes Limited Vs. Bhavya Pipe Industry reported in 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1730 , relevant portion is condign to quote here :-
66. In light of the above discussion, the following directions are issued:
(i) Usually, in all IPR cases, the valuation ought to be Rs.3 lakhs and above and proper Court fee would have to be paid accordingly.
All IPR suits to be instituted before District Courts, would therefore, first be instituted before the District Judge (Commercial).
(ii) In case of any IPR suits valued below Rs. 3 lakhs, the Commercial Court shall examine the specified value and suit valuation to ensure it is not arbitrary or unreasonable and the suit is not undervalued.
(iii) Upon such examination, the concerned Commercial Court would pass appropriate orders in accordance with law either directing the plaintiff to amend the plaint and pay the requisite Court fee or to proceed with the suit as a non-commercial suit.
(iv) In order to however maintain consistency and clarity in adjudication, even such suits which may be valued below Rs.3 lakhs and continue as non-
commercial suits, shall also continue to be listed before Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINDESH RAIKWAR Signing time: 11-Dec-25 7:33:03 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:36415 8 MP-4539-2025 the District Judge (Commercial), but may not be subjected to the provisions of the CCA.
(v) All pending IPR suits before the different District Judges (non- Commercial) in Delhi shall be placed before the concerned District Judges (Commercial) for following the procedure specified above. plaintiffs who wish to amend the Plaint would be permitted to do so in accordance with law.
12. So far as the judgment of Vishal Pipes Limited (supra) relied by counsel for the petitioner is concerned, the same is of no help to him as the same has been overruled by a recent decision rendered by the Division Bench of Delhi High Court in the case of Pankaj Ravjibhai Patel Trading as Rakesh Pharmaceuticals Vs. SSS Pharmachem Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2023 SCC Delhi 7013, hence, judgment passed in Vishal Pipes Limited (supra) has lost its effect.
14. Pausing here for a moment, it would be apposite to deal with the provisions of Section 2(c) (xvii). This provision of law provides ;- "(c) "commercial dispute" means a dispute arising out of-- " and 2(1)(C)(xvii). which provides that intellectual property rights relating to registered and unregistered trademarks, copyright, patent, design, domain names, geographical indications and semiconductor integrated circuits;. In the case at hand, the question which requires consideration is that which firm is prior user of the trademark "Shri Ankit", it would be either plaintiff's firm or defendant's firm, but it is not in dispute that matter revolves around the determination of the trademark which is non-commercial in nature and not Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINDESH RAIKWAR Signing time: 11-Dec-25 7:33:03 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:36415 9 MP-4539-2025 fall under Section 2(1)(C)(xvii) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, because this is not for specified value not less than of Rs.3 lakhs, as prescribed in Section 2(1) of the Act.
13. In upshot of the aforesaid deliberations in entirety and the provisions of law governing the field, this Court is of the considered opinion that the order passed by the Trial Court neither suffers from any jurisdictional error nor from any perversity as the same is in well versed manner. Hence, no case for interference is called for.
14. In view of the above, Miscellaneous Petition sans merit and is hereby dismissed.
(ALOK AWASTHI) JUDGE Vindesh Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINDESH RAIKWAR Signing time: 11-Dec-25 7:33:03 PM