M/S. CUTIS INTERNATIONAL COSMETICS CLINIC LTD COMPANY vs M/S. CUTIS INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE AND SURGERY PRIVATE LIMITED
- Court
- Kerala High Court
CNR : KLHC010699542025
2026:KER:68191
CRP NO.284 OF 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
TH
TUESDAY, THE 8 DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 / 17TH BHADRA, 1948
CRP NO. 284 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 23.07.2025 IN IA 3/2025 IN OS
NO.6 OF 2024 OF I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, KOZHIKODE.
REVISION PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONERS/DEFENDANTS:
1 M/S.CUTIS INTERNATIONAL COSMETICS CLINIC LTD
COMPANY
REP.BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SHAJEER
MANCHINCHERY,1/1136, SRIDHAR DIACARE, 2ND FLOOR, BG
ROAD, CHAKKAROTHKULAM, NADAKKAVU KOZHIKODE
AMSOMDESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK, PIN - 673007
2 SHAJEER MANCHINCHERY
AGED 37 YEARS
1/1136, SRIDHAR DIACARE, 2ND FLOOR, BG ROAD,
CHAKKAROTHKULAM, NADAKKAVU KOZHIKODE AMSOM DESOM,
KOZHIKODE TALUK, PIN - 673007
3 SHAYISTA PANTHA PULAN
AGED 32 YEARS
1/1136, SRIDHAR DIACARE, 2ND FLOOR, BG ROAD,
CHAKKAROTHKULAM, NADAKKAVU KOZHIKODE AMSOMDESOM,
KOZHIKODE TALUK, PIN - 673007
BY ADVS.
SHRI.ANILKUMAR V. (VAZHARAMBIL)
SHRI.KIRAN JOHNY
CNR : KLHC010699542025
2026:KER:68191
CRP NO.284 OF 2025
2
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF:
M/S.CUTIS INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE AND SURGERY PRIVATE
LIMITED
A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY REP.ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
DR.PRASSANNA KUMAR S, S/O. N S MENON, AGED 71
YEARS, HAVING ITS REGD.OFFICE AT 24/1599 A B,
PRINSTINEGRADENS, THONDAYAD BYE PASS JUNTION,
SREENELLIKKODE VISHNU TEMPLE ROAD,
CHEVAYURAMSOMDESOM KOZHIKODE TALUK,
PIN - 673016
BY ADVS.
SRI.SERGI JOSEPH THOMAS
SHRI.SANDEEP P.
SHRI.MADHAV P. SANDEEP
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
08.09.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CNR : KLHC010699542025
2026:KER:68191
CRP NO.284 OF 2025
3
'C.R'
O R D E R
The petitioner challenges the order dated 23.07.2025 in IA No.03
of 2025 in OS No.06 of 2024, passed by the Additional District Court,
Kozhikode, rejecting his contention on the maintainability of the suit
filed by the respondent herein. The said suit was filed for prohibitory
injunction and damages alleging that the defendants were infringing
the registered Trade Mark of the plaintiff.
2. The estimated value for the relief of prohibitory injunction was
valued at Rs.1000/- and the amount claimed as damages was
Rs.5,00,000/-. Thus, the total jurisdictional value shown in the plaint
was Rs.5,10,000/-.
3. The contention raised by the revision petitioner was that
though a suit can be instituted before the District Court, it cannot be
tried there and places reliance on Section 9 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 and Section 11(2) of the Kerala Civil Courts Act, 1957 to
CNR : KLHC010699542025
2026:KER:68191
CRP NO.284 OF 2025
4
contend that, going by the pecuniary value, the suit can only be tried
by a Munsiff Court and not by a District Court.
4. Section 9 CPC does not, by itself, contemplate a distinction
between the court in which a suit is instituted and the court which has
jurisdiction to try it. Section 9 CPC does not conceive of a jurisdictional
vacuum between the court of institution and the court of trial. The
court which is competent to entertain the suit under the scheme of CPC
is, subject to a lawful transfer under the code or any other special
enactment, the court competent to adjudicate it. The distinction
between the place of institution and a court of trial can arise only as a
consequence of a subsequent transfer or a special statutory provision,
and it cannot be founded merely upon Section 9 CPC itself.
5. Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act stipulates that no suit shall
be instituted in any court inferior to a District Court having jurisdiction
to try the suit means that a trade mark infringement suit cannot be
instituted before a court below the District Court merely because, on
valuation, that lower court would ordinarily possess the pecuniary
CNR : KLHC010699542025
2026:KER:68191
CRP NO.284 OF 2025
5
jurisdiction. Given the above, the District Court, for the purposes of
Section 134, has to be regarded as the lowest grade competent court to
try a trade mark suit, under Section 15 CPC. To hold otherwise would
result in a court inferior to the District Court ultimately trying a suit
which Section 134 expressly prohibits from being instituted and would
render the statutory mandate that the suit be instituted before a
District Court largely otiose. The interpretation sought to be placed by
the petitioner is difficult to sustain textually and structurally.
6. It is also relevant to note that Section 134 speaks of the District
Court having jurisdiction to try the suit, and therefore institution and
trial cannot be seen as separate, more so when the legislature itself
declared that a court inferior to the District Court is not competent to
try such a suit. The word, "having jurisdiction" does not necessarily
mean, "having pecuniary jurisdiction".Thus, Section 134 must be taken
as a special jurisdictional provision, overriding the ordinary CPC
position to the extent specified. In any view of the matter, Section 134
of the Trade Marks Act does not contemplate a suit being instituted in a
CNR : KLHC010699542025
2026:KER:68191
CRP NO.284 OF 2025
6
District Court merely as a matter of form and thereafter being
transferred to a court inferior to the District Court for trial on the
ground of pecuniary jurisdiction.
7. Given the above, there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that
the only court where the plaintiff could have instituted the suit was the
District Court. That apart, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-
sections (1), (1-A) and (2) of Section 3 of the Commercial Courts Act,
2015 (Central Act 4 of 2016), the Government of Kerala in consultation
with the High Court of Kerala designated all District Courts and
Additional District Courts in the State as Commercial Courts at the
District Judge level for the purpose of exercising jurisdiction and
powers conferred under the said Act, to deal with those commercial
disputes arising under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the
Copyright Act, 1957, the Trademarks Act, 1999, the Patents Act, 1970
and any other statutes where the Principal Civil Court of original
jurisdiction in a District has to adjudicate the disputes arising
therefrom at the first instance. The Courts shall have jurisdiction over
CNR : KLHC010699542025
2026:KER:68191
CRP NO.284 OF 2025
7
disputes with a specified value of not less than ten lakh, which was only
regarding the Commercial Suits.
Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the objection raised on
behalf of the revision petitioner and the revision will stand dismissed.
SD/-
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.,
JUDGE
JJ
Judgment reserved NA
Date of Judgment 08/09/26
Judgment dictated 08/09/26
Draft judgment placed 08.09.26
Judgment Corrected 10/09/26
Final judgment uploaded 11/09/26