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
