$~29 & 30.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 11035/2015 & CM APPL. 28492/2015 (STAY)
VIFOR (INTERNATIONAL) LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr.Sudhir Chandra and Mr.Gopal Jain,
Sr. Advs. with Ms.Vaishali Mittal,
Mr.Siddhant Chamola, Mr.Aditya Gupta,
Ms.Kritika Vijay and Ms.D.Neha Reddy,
Advs.

versus

THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI ..... Respondent

Through : Mr.Sanjoy Ghose, Adv.

+ W.P.(C) 11043/2015 & CM APPL. 28506/2015 (STAY)

ASIAN PATENT ASSOCIATION ( INDIAN GROUP) ..... Petitioner
Through : Ms.Pratibha M. Singh, Sr. Adv. with
Ms.Radha Chawla, Mr.Devanshu Khanna
and Ms.Tara Ganju, Advs.

versus

REGISTRAR GENERAL,DELHI HIGH COURT ..... Respondent

Through : Mr.Raj Shekhar Rao, Adv.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL

ORDER
% 03.12.2015

In this matter, we have had the benefit of hearing learned senior counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioners and counsel for the respondent.

W.P.(C) Nos.11035/2015 & 11043/2015 Page 1 of 6

 The prayer made in these writ petitions being common is that the cases,
arising out of the five Statutes i.e. Patents Act, 1970; Trademarks Act, 1999;
Designs Act, 2000; Copyright Act, 2000; and The Geographical Indications of
Goods (Registration And Protection) Act, 1999, of the value less than Rs.1.00
crore are not required to be transferred in view of the Proviso to Section 7 of the
Commercial Court, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division
Ordinance, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as „Proviso to Section 7 of the
Ordinance‟).
Section 7 and the First Proviso to Section 7 of the Ordinance reads as
under:
“All suits and applications relating to commercial disputes of a Specified
Value filed in a High Court having ordinary original civil jurisdiction
shall be heard and disposed of by the Commercial Division of that High
Court:

Provided that all suits and applications relating to commercial

disputes, stipulated by an Act to lie in a court not inferior to a
District Court, and filled on the original side of the High Court,
shall be heard and disposed of by the Commercial Division of the
High Court.”

Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submit that

as per the various Sections of the aforestated five Acts, a suit would not lie in
any Court inferior to a District Court. In support of this submission, learned
senior counsel rely upon the relevant Sections, Actwise, which read as under:

Statute Patents Act, Trademarks Designs Copyright Act, Geographical

1970 Act, 1999 Act,2000 1957 Indications Of
Goods
(Registration
And
Protection)
Act, 1999
Relevant Section 104 Section 134: Proviso to Section 62 Section 66 -
Provisions Section Suit for

W.P.(C) Nos.11035/2015 & 11043/2015 Page 2 of 6

 Jurisdiction- Suit for 22(2) Jurisdiction of infringement,
Infringement, court over etc., to be
etc. to Be matters arising instituted
Instituted under this before district
No suit for a Before District No suit or Chapter- court
declaration Court— any other
under section proceeding (1) Every suit or
105 or for any (1) No suit— for relief other civil
relief under under this proceeding (1) No suit,—
section 106 or (a) for the subsection arising under
for infringement of shall be this Chapter in (a) for the
infringement a registered trade instituted in respect of the infringement of
of a patent mark; or any court infringement of a registered
shall be below the copyright in any geographical
instituted in (b) relating to court of work or the indication; or
any court any right in a District infringement of
inferior to a registered trade Judge. any other right (b) relating to
district court mark; or conferred by this any right in a
having Act shall be registered
jurisdiction to (c) for passing instituted in the geographical
try the suit: off arising out of district court indication; or
the use by the having
defendant of any jurisdiction. (c) for passing
trade mark of arising out of
Provided that which is (2) For the the use by the
where a identical with or purpose of sub- defendant of
counter-claim deceptively section (1), and any
for revocation similar to the "district court geographical
of the patent is plaintiff‟s trade having indication
made by the mark, whether jurisdiction" which is
defendant, the registered or shall, identical with
suit, along unregistered, notwithstanding or deceptively
with the shall be anything similar to the
counter-claim, instituted in any contained in the geographical
shall be court inferior to Code of Civil indication
transferred to a District Court Procedure, 1908, relating to the
the High Court having or any other law plaintiff,
for decision jurisdiction to for the time whether
try the suit. being in force, registered or
include a district unregistered,
court within the
local limits of shall be
For the purpose whose instituted in any
of clauses (a) jurisdiction, at court inferior to
and (b) of sub- the time of the a district court
section (1), a institution of the having
“District Court suit or other jurisdiction to
having proceeding, the try the suit.
jurisdiction” person
shall, instituting the
notwithstanding suit or other
anything proceeding or,
where there are (2) For the
contained in the purpose of

W.P.(C) Nos.11035/2015 & 11043/2015 Page 3 of 6

 Code of Civil more than one clauses (a) and
Procedure,1908 such persons, (b) of sub-
or any other law any of them section (1), a
for the time actually and "district Court
being in force, voluntarily having
include a District resides or carries jurisdiction"
Court within the on business or shall,
local limits of personally notwithstanding
whose works for gain. anything
jurisdiction , at contained in the
the time of the Code of Civil
institution of the Procedure,
suit or other 1908 (5 of
proceeding, the 1908) or any
person other law for
instituting the the time being
suit or in force,
proceeding, or, include a
where there are District Court
more than one within the local
such persons any limits of whose
of them, actually jurisdiction, at
and voluntarily the time of the
resides or carries institution of
on business or the suit or other
personally works proceeding, the
for gain. person
instituting the
suit or
proceeding, or,
where there are
more than one
such persons
any of them,
actually and
voluntarily
resides or
carries on
business or
personally
works for gain.

Explanation.—
for the purposes
of sub-section
(2), "person"
includes the
registered
proprietor and
the authorised
user.

W.P.(C) Nos.11035/2015 & 11043/2015 Page 4 of 6

 It is the submission of learned senior counsel for the petitioners that a
reading of the Proviso to Section 7 of the Ordinance would show that all the
suits and applications relating to commercial disputes stipulated by an Act to lie
in a court not inferior to a District Court would pertain to the above five Acts.
Interpreting this proviso further, it is submitted that in case any suit arising out
of the above five Acts has already been filed on the Original Side of the High
Court, the same is to be heard and disposed of by the Commercial Division of
the High Court, as per the Proviso to Section 7 of the Ordinance. In effect, the
suits pending in this case arising out of the five Acts even if their value is less
than Rs.1.00 crore, is to be tried by the Commercial Division of the High Court.
Additionally, it is submitted that in case an application for amendment of
the plaint is filed, the respective Single Judges must hear and consider the same
in accordance with law, as counsel contend that there are decisions, as per
which, an amendment application can be entertained even if the jurisdictional
value of the Court has changed (increased or decreased). It is further submitted
that such a direction is required as amendment applications are not being
accepted by the Registry.
Mr.Ghosh submits that the Ordinance is likely to be replaced by an Act in
the Winter Session of the Parliament, which is already underway and the Act in
the final form may clarify some of the ambiguities. It is, thus, prayed that both
these matters should be taken up in the middle of January, 2016.
After hearing learned senior counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Sanjoy
Ghose and Mr.Raj Shekhar Rao, counsel for the respondent/Delhi High Court,
we are of the view that, prima facie, interpretation to Proviso to Section 7 of the
Ordinance requires consideration. Accordingly, till the next date of hearing,
cases arising out of Patents Act, 1970; Trademarks Act, 1999; Designs Act,
2000; Copyright Act, 2000; and The Geographical Indications of Goods
(Registration And Protection) Act, 1999, shall not be transferred and in case

W.P.(C) Nos.11035/2015 & 11043/2015 Page 5 of 6

application seeking amendment in the pecuniary value is filed, they shall be
considered by the respective Single Judges in accordance with law.
List on 19.1.2016.
Let a copy of this order be given DASTI under the signature of Court
Master to counsel for the parties.

G.S.SISTANI, J

SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J

DECEMBER 03, 2015
msr /

W.P.(C) Nos.11035/2015 & 11043/2015 Page 6 of 6