Short Summary
This transfer petition arose from cross-appeals filed by both parties against a common order dated 5.7.2024 passed by the Commercial Court-III, Ernakulam, in proceedings challenging an arbitral award. The petitioners sought transfer of C.M.A.(Arb) Nos. 27 and 28 of 2024, pending before the Principal District Court, Ernakulam, to the Kerala High Court. The court allowed the petition, holding that under the amended Government Order designating Commercial Courts, appeals from arbitration-related commercial disputes must be filed before the Commercial Appellate Division of the High Court.
Detailed Summary
The petitioners, Pangode Co-Operative Society Ltd. and its Secretary, and the respondents, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and its Divisional Manager, had both challenged an arbitral award (Annexure-I) before the Commercial Court-III (Addl. Sub Judge-III), Ernakulam, which resulted in a common order dated 5.7.2024 (Annexure-II). Against this common order, the petitioners preferred C.M.A.(Arb) No. 28/2024 while the respondents preferred C.M.A.(Arb) No. 27/2024 before the Principal District Court, Ernakulam, under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The petitioners filed the present Transfer Petition seeking to transfer both these appeals to the Kerala High Court. Their contention was based on G.O.(MS) No.51/2020/Home dated 24-02-2020, which originally designated all Subordinate Judges' Courts in the State as Commercial Courts, and the subsequent amendment (Annexure VI, G.O.(MS) No.49/2026/Home dated 05-03-2026). The amended Government Order designated all Subordinate Judges' Courts as Commercial Courts to deal with commercial disputes, except those 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 disputes at the first instance. The explanatory note to Annexure-VI clarified that appeals from such commercial disputes shall be filed before the Commercial Appellate Division of the High Court, as contemplated under sub-section (2) of Section 15 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
The petitioners argued that since the appeals arose from commercial disputes under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, they should be filed before the Commercial Appellate Division of the High Court rather than the Principal District Court. They also sought permission via I.A. No. 1 of 2026 to transfer C.M.A.(Arb) No. 27/2024, filed by the respondents, also to the High Court.
The court, presided over by Justice Mohammed Nias C.P., observed that since both matters arose from the same arbitral award and the parties were the same, it was just and proper that both proceedings be transferred to the High Court in view of the notification. Accordingly, the Transfer Petition was allowed. The court directed that C.M.A.(Arb) Nos. 27 and 28 of 2024 pending before the Principal District Court, Ernakulam, be transferred to the High Court. The Registry was instructed to forward a copy of the order to the Principal District Court for transmission of records, and upon receipt, to re-number the matters as arbitration appeals and list them before the appropriate Bench as per roster.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Kerala High Court. Understanding the court's reasoning in Pangode Co-Operative Society Ltd. vs The New India Assurance Co. Ltd is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
The North Face Apparel CorpvsController of Patents and Designs
The North Face Apparel Corp challenged the Controller of Patents' refusal of its patent application (No. 202147026139) titled 'Systems and Methods for End-to-End Article Management' before the Madras High Court under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970. The Controller had rejected the application citing lack of inventive step over prior art documents D21-D24. The Court held that the Controller erred by dissecting the claims into isolated elements rather than assessing the invention as a whole, and overlooked the use of spectrophotometer and invisible markers for tracking the manufacturing process, which were not disclosed in the cited prior art. The appeal was allowed and the Controller was directed to grant the patent.
Aventose Energy Private LimitedvsThe Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs, Patent Office Chennai
Aventose Energy Private Limited appealed under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970 against the refusal of its patent application (No. 202141019671) for a 'System and Method for Operating Automobiles with an Electric Drivetrain' featuring safe mode activation upon fault detection. The Madras High Court found that the Assistant Controller had contradicted the First Examination Report (which accepted novelty) by subsequently holding the invention lacked novelty without giving the applicant an opportunity to be heard. The court further held that the Controller improperly conflated novelty with inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja) and failed to properly analyze the claims against prior art documents D1–D4.
Apex Laboratories Pvt LtdvsElder Lifescience and Ambico Ayurvedic Health Care
Apex Laboratories Pvt Ltd, the prior adopter and registered proprietor of the trademark ZINCOVIT (TM No. 487453 in Class 5) since 1988, sought interim injunction against Elder Lifescience and Ambico Ayurvedic Health Care for using the deceptively similar mark NEO ZINCOVIT. The applicant also claimed copyright infringement of its registered artistic works (A-108878/2014) covering colour scheme, get-up, and layout. The Madras High Court was satisfied that the respondents were attempting to piggyback on the applicant's goodwill and granted interim injunctions on all three applications covering trademark infringement, copyright infringement, and passing off.
Radico Khaitan LimitedvsPicadilly Agro Industries Limited
This Special Leave Petition arose from a judgment dated 29-05-2026 in CS No. 8/2025 passed by the District Judge, Karnal, Haryana, concerning a trademark dispute over the marks 'Cashmere' and 'Kashmyr' used in relation to beer and vodka. The Supreme Court noted that a First Appeal (FAO-COM-11-2026) was already pending before the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, listed for 28.10.2026. The Court disposed of the SLP without adjudicating it on merits, requesting the High Court to pass an appropriate order regarding the ad interim injunction on the scheduled date.
Maharaja Agrasen Technical Educational Society (Regd.)vsMaharaja Agrasen Himalayan Garhwal University
The plaintiff, Maharaja Agrasen Technical Educational Society, filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant, Maharaja Agrasen Himalayan Garhwal University, alleging infringement and passing off regarding the use of the words 'Maharaja Agrasen' in the defendant's name. The Delhi High Court had previously granted a restraint order on 10.07.2026. During the pendency of the suit, the parties arrived at a settlement dated 14.09.2026, under which the defendant agreed to change its name through a statutory amendment while being permitted limited transitional use of its existing name. The court recorded the settlement, modified the interim order accordingly, and listed the matter for compliance reporting on 13.07.2027.
Varahi Diamonds And Finance LimitedvsSahil Vinay Mehra Trading As Mehra Sons Jewellers & Anr.
This is a commercial suit filed by Varahi Diamonds And Finance Limited against Sahil Vinay Mehra Trading As Mehra Sons Jewellers & Anr. before the Delhi High Court. The order is primarily procedural, dealing with the registration of the plaint, issuance of summons, directions for filing pleadings, and an interim injunction application. The matter was referred to mediation, with parties directed to appear before the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.
Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.