Court invokes Section 24 of CPC to transfer non-commercial IPR matters, emphasizing the importance of avoiding conflicting decisions
In a significant ruling aimed at streamlining intellectual property rights (IPR) litigation, the Delhi High Court has ordered the consolidation of multiple IPR proceedings to avert conflicting decisions and ensure judicial efficiency. The decision was delivered by Justice Tejas Karia, concerning the transfer petition filed by Shri Surinder Kumar against the Registrar of Copyrights and others.
The case revolved around the transfer of two ongoing proceedings: a suit and a counterclaim pending before the Additional District Judge at Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, to the Intellectual Property Rights Division of the Delhi High Court. The petitioner sought this transfer to consolidate these cases with an existing rectification petition before the High Court, concerning the same trademark and copyright issues.
Justice Karia ruled that Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908, provides the High Court with the general power to transfer proceedings, irrespective of whether the matters are pending before a commercial or non-commercial court. This ruling underscores the Court's authority to consolidate cases involving overlapping IPR issues, even if some proceedings are non-commercial.
The Court highlighted that the aim of both Section 24 of the CPC and Rule 26 of the Intellectual Property Rights Division Rules, 2022, is to prevent multiplicity of proceedings and conflicting decisions. The ruling clarified that Rule 26 does not restrict the Court’s power under Section 24 to transfer non-commercial matters, thereby maintaining judicial efficiency by resolving disputes from related IPR subject matters in a single adjudication.
The decision came after considering arguments from both the petitioner and respondents. While the petitioner argued for consolidation to avoid inconsistent judgments, the respondent raised concerns about the stage of proceedings and potential prejudice due to the transfer. However, the Court found that the larger interest of avoiding conflicting decisions outweighed these concerns.
By transferring the suit and counterclaim, the Court aims to ensure that all evidence and arguments are considered holistically, thereby promoting consistency in judicial outcomes. This move is expected to set a precedent for handling similar IPR cases, reinforcing the judiciary's commitment to efficient and coherent adjudication.
Bottom Line:
Intellectual Property Rights - Consolidation of proceedings related to identical IPR subject matter permissible under Section 24 of CPC, 1908, even if the suit is not pending before a Commercial Court.
Statutory provision(s): Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Section 24, Intellectual Property Rights Division Rules, 2022 Rule 26
Shri Surinder Kumar v. Registrar of Copyrights, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2824490
