High Court Supervises Mandatory Valuation of Intangible Rights to Prevent Forum Shopping in Commercial Disputes Case Brief: I. Facts: The Respondent/Plaintiff initially filed a trademark infringement suit for "TULASI" in a regular Civil Court. After the Civil Court directed a disclosure of "Specified Value" under Section 12 of the Commercial Courts Act (CC Act), the Respondent filed a memo stating the value exceeded ₹3,00,000, leading to the transfer of the case to a Commercial Court. However, the Respondent later filed an application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC to return the plaint back to the Civil Court, claiming the value was actually below ₹3,00,000, citing a different order involving the same trademark. The Commercial Court allowed this return without independently verifying the market value of the intangible right. II. Issues for Consideration: 1. Is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution maintainable against interlocutory orders of a Commercial Court despite the bar in Section 8 of the CC Act? 2. Can a plaintiff unilaterally alter the "Specified Value" to shift jurisdictions (forum shopping) after once declaring it? 3. Is a Commercial Court required to independently determine the market value of intangible rights under Section 12(1)(d) of the CC Act? III. Ruling & Analysis: * Maintainability under Article 227: The High Court held that the power of superintendence under Article 227 is a "basic feature" of the Constitution and cannot be ousted by Section 8 of the CC Act. However, this power remains discretionary and must be exercised "sparingly," only to correct patent jurisdictional errors or manifest injustice. * Alternative Remedy: The Court noted that since the procedure under Order VII Rule 10A CPC was followed (fixing a date for appearance), a statutory appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(a) was barred by Sub-rule (5). Thus, the Petitioner was remediless, justifying interference under Article 227. * Mandatory Valuation under Section 12(1)(d): The Court ruled that for intangible rights (trademarks), the "Specified Value" must be determined based on the market value estimated by the plaintiff. The Commercial Court committed a jurisdictional error by relying on a separate case's finding rather than conducting an independent inquiry into the *bona fides* of the valuation in the present suit. * Forum Shopping: The Court emphasized that while a plaintiff is *dominus litis*, they cannot take inconsistent stands on valuation to wander between forums, as this defeats the CC Act’s objective of "speedy disposal." IV. Conclusion: The High Court set aside the order returning the plaint. It directed the Commercial Court to conduct a fresh enquiry into the "Specified Value" of the trademark to determine if it truly meets the ₹3,00,000 threshold for commercial jurisdiction.

The Respondent (Plaintiff) initially filed a trademark infringement suit for the mark "TULASI" before a Civil Court

Upon objection, the Plaintiff filed a memo estimating the "specified value" of the suit at above ₹3,00,000, leading the Civil Court to return the plaint for presentation before the Commercial Court under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (CC Act)

After the suit was registered as Comm.O.S.No.1093/2024 and the plaint amended to reflect the higher valuation, the Plaintiff filed I.A. No. 7 under Order VII Rule 10 CPC, claiming the value was actually below ₹3,00,000 and seeking a transfer back to the Civil Court

The Commercial Court allowed the application, relying on an order in a separate suit (Comm.O.S.No.1197/2024) where the Plaintiff's trademark was valued below the threshold

The Petitioner (Defendant) challenged this return of plaint under Article 227 of the Constitution

1. Whether the Impugned Order passed by the Commercial Court warrants interference under the supervisory jurisdiction of Article 227 of the Constitution

2. Whether a Plaintiff, having once invoked Commercial Court jurisdiction by asserting a specific value, can subsequently seek return of the plaint by claiming a lower value

3. Whether the Commercial Court was justified in relying on an order from a different proceeding to determine pecuniary jurisdiction without an independent assessment of "specified value" under Section 12 of the CC Act

The court applied Section 2(1)(i) and Section 12(1)(d) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, which mandate that the "specified value" of intangible rights like trademarks must be the market value as "estimated by the plaintiff"

Regarding Article 227, the court relied on L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India and Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai, establishing that supervisory jurisdiction is part of the "basic structure" and cannot be ousted by Section 8 of the CC Act, though it must be exercised sparingly to correct jurisdictional errors or manifest injustice

It also applied the principle from Pankaj Ravjibhai Patel v. SSS Pharmachem, holding that while a plaintiff is dominus litis, the court must scrutinize valuations to prevent forum shopping or mala fide under-valuation

The High Court observed that the Respondent/Plaintiff had taken contradictory stands regarding the suit's valuation to shift between forums

The court found that the Commercial Court committed a jurisdictional error by failing to independently determine the "specified value" as required by Section 12(1)(d) of the CC Act

Instead of conducting a factual inquiry into the Plaintiff’s shifting estimations, the Commercial Court erroneously relied on an order from a different suit (Comm.O.S.No.1197/2024) which had itself incorrectly applied Section 12(1)(c) (immovable property) instead of Section 12(1)(d) (intangible rights)

The High Court reasoned that while Section 8 of the CC Act bars civil revisions, it does not bar Article 227 petitions where a "stitch in time" is necessary to prevent a travesty of justice or procedural wandering

The Court directed the Commercial Court to restore the proceedings and conduct a formal examination of the "specified value" in accordance with Section 12 of the CC Act

Furthermore, the Registry was directed to place the matter before the Chief Justice to consider creating a separate roster/procedure for Article 227 petitions arising from commercial disputes to ensure they align with the CC Act’s objective of speedy disposal