Introduction
The case of Fair Food Overseas Pvt Ltd v. KRBL Limited, decided by the High Court of Delhi, represents a significant judicial interpretation in the realm of intellectual property rights (IPR) litigation in India, particularly concerning the interplay between procedural rules governing IPR disputes and the general transfer powers under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).
Background of the Dispute
This matter revolves around a transfer petition seeking to shift a copyright infringement suit from a District Court to the High Court’s Intellectual Property Division (IPD) for consolidation with a related rectification petition.
- Transfer petition filed under Section 24 of the CPC.
- Objective was consolidation of related proceedings.
- Involved copyright infringement and rectification issues.
The decision underscores the High Court’s broad discretionary authority to streamline IPR proceedings to prevent multiplicity and conflicting judgments, even when the underlying suit does not qualify as a “commercial” matter under specialized legislation.
Legal Context and IPR Framework
This ruling emerges against the backdrop of evolving IPR frameworks in India, following the abolition of bodies like the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) and the establishment of dedicated IPD rules to expedite dispute resolution.
| Aspect | Relevance in the Case |
|---|---|
| IPAB | Abolished, leading to increased role of High Courts. |
| IPD Rules, 2022 | Provide procedural framework for IPR disputes. |
| Section 24 CPC | Empowers High Court to transfer and consolidate cases. |
Judicial Reasoning and Interpretation
By affirming the primacy of Section 24 of the CPC over restrictive interpretations of Rule 26 of the IPD Rules, 2022, the court sets a precedent for efficient case management in IPR cases, highlighting the need for harmonious construction of statutory provisions to serve the ends of justice.
Key Principles Emphasized
- Broad discretionary powers of the High Court.
- Harmonious construction of procedural laws.
- Judicial preference for consolidated adjudication.
Significance of the Judgment
The judgment not only facilitates consolidated adjudication but also reflects the judiciary’s proactive stance in adapting procedural norms to the complexities of modern IPR enforcement, where overlapping issues of copyright validity and infringement often span multiple forums.
Factual Background
The dispute originates from allegations of copyright infringement involving trade dress and artistic works in the food industry, specifically basmati rice packaging. KRBL Limited, a prominent player in the rice export market known for its “India Gate” brand, initiated a suit in 2021 before the Additional District Judge at Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, against Fair Food Overseas Pvt Ltd. The suit accused Fair Food of infringing KRBL’s copyright in its trade dress, seeking remedies including a permanent injunction, passing off declaration, rendition of accounts, and damages.
Trade Dress Claim
The trade dress in question pertained to visual elements like packaging design, which KRBL claimed as proprietary. In response, KRBL also filed a rectification petition before the High Court’s IPD, aiming to expunge Fair Food’s copyright registration No. A-121365/2017 for a similar artistic work, arguing it was invalid or improperly granted.
Defence by Fair Food
Fair Food, on the other hand, contested these claims, asserting the legitimacy of its registration and denying any infringement. The factual matrix reveals a classic IPR tussle where both parties claim rights over similar aesthetic elements in product packaging, a common issue in competitive markets like food exports.
Jurisdictional Aspects
- The suit was valued below the Rs. 3 lakh threshold, rendering it a non-commercial matter under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
- The rectification petition fell under the High Court’s IPR jurisdiction post the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021.
- This Act transferred such matters from the defunct IPAB to High Courts.
Procedural Background
KRBL’s suit (TM No. 305 of 2021) was filed in the District Court, where interim applications under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC for injunction and under Order VI Rule 17 CPC for plaint amendment were pending, indicating the matter was at a nascent stage without substantial progress.
Parallelly, KRBL’s rectification petition (C.O. (COMM.IPD-CR) 707/2022) was lodged before the High Court’s IPD. Fair Food then filed the transfer petition (TR.P.(C.) 7/2024) under Section 24 CPC read with Rule 26 of the IPD Rules, seeking to transfer the District Court suit to the High Court for joint hearing with the rectification petition to avoid duplicative proceedings.
Arguments by Fair Food
- The early stage of the suit justified transfer.
- There were overlapping IPR issues.
- The IPD Rules allow consolidation of related matters.
- Section 24 CPC provides general transfer authority.
Fair Food’s counsel cited precedents like Patola Industries v. Mahesh Namkeen Pvt Ltd, where similar transfers were ordered. They emphasized that Rule 26 empowers consolidation of related IPR matters and that Section 24 CPC provides general transfer authority, not limited to commercial courts.
Arguments by KRBL
- Rule 26 applies only to suits before commercial courts.
- The suit’s low valuation excluded it from commercial classification.
- Transfers must be read restrictively with CPC provisions.
KRBL’s counsel relied on Fox & Mandal v. Somabrata Mandal from the Calcutta High Court, stressing the importance of procedural stage and potential delays, and Sonani Industries Pvt Ltd v. Sanjay Jayantibhai Patel, where a rectification was stayed pending suit disposal.
Reasoning And Decision Of Court
In its detailed analysis, the court, presided over by Justice Tejas Karia, meticulously dissected the interplay between Rule 26 of the IPD Rules and Section 24 of the CPC. The court acknowledged the respondent’s (KRBL’s) primary objection that Rule 26 limits transfers to matters pending before commercial courts, as explicitly stated in the rule, which allows the IPD to exercise Section 24 powers only for such consolidations. However, the court adopted a harmonious interpretation, holding that Rule 26 does not curtail the High Court’s inherent general powers under Section 24 CPC, which permit transfers of any subordinate court proceedings at any stage, even suo motu, to prevent multiplicity and ensure consistent adjudication.
The court reasoned that the reference to Section 24 in Rule 26 is merely clarificatory and does not restrict its broader application, emphasizing that both provisions share the objective of avoiding conflicting decisions in related matters. Applying this to IPR disputes, where parties often pursue remedies across forums, the court noted the identical subject matter—copyright validity and infringement—in the suit and rectification petition, making consolidation expedient.
Distinguishing Prior Precedents
It distinguished precedents like Fox & Mandal, where advanced procedural stages and delays weighed against transfer, observing that the present suit was at an early juncture with pending interim applications, causing no prejudice. Similarly, Sonani Industries was differentiated due to Supreme Court directives for expeditious suit disposal, which were absent here.
Reference To Earlier Transfer Cases
The court also referenced its prior exercises of transfer powers in Loreal India Pvt Ltd and Patola Industries, even if consensual, to affirm that non-commercial IPR matters can be transferred under Section 24 independently of Rule 26.
Final Direction Of The Court
Ultimately, the court allowed the transfer petition, directing the District Court suit to be transferred to the High Court, renumbered, and consolidated with the rectification petition for joint hearing on March 16, 2026, while disposing of the transfer petition and listing the rectification accordingly.
Point Of Law Settled In The Case
The judgment settles a crucial point of law regarding the scope of transfer powers in IPR proceedings under the IPD Rules vis-à-vis the CPC. Specifically, it clarifies that Rule 26 of the IPD Rules, which empowers the High Court to consolidate related IPR matters and transfer those pending before commercial courts using Section 24 CPC, does not limit or circumscribe the general transfer authority under Section 24 CPC for non-commercial IPR suits.
The court establishes that Section 24 confers wide, independent powers on the High Court to transfer any subordinate court proceeding involving IPR subject matter, irrespective of commercial classification, to avoid multiplicity, parallel adjudication, and conflicting decisions.
- Avoids multiplicity of proceedings.
- Prevents parallel adjudication.
- Ensures consistency in judicial decisions.
This harmonious construction ensures that the IPD Rules supplement rather than restrict CPC provisions, promoting efficient resolution in IPR disputes where overlapping issues are common. By rejecting a narrow reading of Rule 26, the decision affirms the judiciary’s discretion in case management, setting a benchmark for future transfers in hybrid commercial-non-commercial IPR litigations.
Case Details
| Particular | Details |
|---|---|
| Case Title | Fair Food Overseas Pvt Ltd Vs KRBL Limited |
| Date Of Order | 04.12.2025 |
| Case Number | TR.P.(C.) 7/2024 |
| Neutral Citation | 2025:DHC:11705 |
| Name Of Court | High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi |
| Name Of Hon’ble Judge | Mr. Justice Tejas Karia |
Disclaimer: Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation]
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
