Case Note & Summary
The writ petition was filed against an order dated 02.08.2025 by the LXXXVIII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, which returned a plaint for lack of pecuniary jurisdiction in a trademark infringement case. The petitioner, Kanpur Flowercycling Private Limited, contended that the respondent, Sarathi International Inc., had initially claimed the suit's value exceeded Rs.3,00,000/- but later sought to return the plaint claiming it was below that threshold. The petitioner argued this constituted forum shopping and an abuse of process. The respondent maintained that the Commercial Court correctly relied on a previous order indicating the value was below the threshold. The court analyzed the scope of Article 227, emphasizing that it should be exercised sparingly and only in cases of jurisdictional errors or grave injustice. The court found that the Commercial Court had erred in its reliance on prior orders without proper valuation assessment, thus lacking jurisdiction. The court held that the writ petition was maintainable and that the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction was not curtailed by the Commercial Courts Act. The final decision was to set aside the Impugned Order and restore the proceedings in the Commercial Court.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Supervisory Jurisdiction - Scope and Limits - Article 227 of the Constitution of India - The High Court's supervisory jurisdiction is an extension of judicial review and must be exercised sparingly to correct jurisdictional errors or grave injustices, not mere errors of fact or law. The court emphasized that the power of judicial review is part of the Constitution's basic structure and cannot be excluded by legislative enactments (Paras 12-14). B) Commercial Law - Jurisdictional Errors - Pecuniary Jurisdiction under CC Act - The Commercial Court erred in relying on a previous order regarding valuation without ascertaining the specified value in the current case, leading to a lack of jurisdiction. The court held that the valuation of intangible rights must be determined based on the plaintiff's estimation, and any contrary assertion must be substantiated (Paras 4-6). C) Civil Procedure - Maintainability of Writ - Article 227 and Commercial Courts - A writ petition under Article 227 is maintainable against orders of Commercial Courts, and the jurisdiction of the High Court is not curtailed by Section 8 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The court clarified that the term 'petition' in Section 8 does not include petitions under Article 227 (Paras 13-14).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Impugned Order passed by the Commercial Court warrants interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India?
Final Decision
The High Court set aside the Impugned Order and restored the proceedings in the Commercial Court, emphasizing the need for proper valuation assessment.
Law Points
- Article 226
- Article 227
- Commercial Courts Act
- 2015
- Code of Civil Procedure
- 1908
- jurisdictional errors
- supervisory jurisdiction
- trademark infringement
