Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the transfer of the patent infringement suit pending before the Delhi High Court to the Bombay High Court, where a prior suit on groundless threat of infringement was already instituted. The Court held that trying both suits before different forums would lead to duplication, multiplicity, conflicting findings, and wastage of judicial resources. It emphasised that the issues in both matters substantially overlapped, and therefore directed that both suits be heard together by the Bombay High Court. The Court dismissed the competing transfer petition seeking to move the Bombay suit to Delhi.
Reaffirming the principle from Chitivalasa Jute Mills, the Court observed that “when issues, evidence, and parties substantially overlap, separate trials risk inconsistent decrees.”
Facts
The petitioner is a manufacturer of home and kitchen appliances and launched a new water purifier under a distinct brand name in June 2025. Shortly after the launch, the petitioner alleged that its competitor had issued groundless and unjustified oral threats, warning distributors and retailers that the petitioner’s purifier infringed certain patents and that legal action would follow. These threats allegedly disrupted the petitioner’s business relationships and caused fear among customers.
To counteract these alleged threats, the petitioner instituted a suit under Section 106 of the Patents Act before the Bombay High Court on 1 July 2025, seeking relief from groundless threats.
The respondent, also a manufacturer of water purifiers, asserted that the petitioner’s newly launched purifier contained patented technologies relating to customizable taste and TDS adjustment features. It was further alleged that the petitioner’s contract manufacturer had earlier served as the respondent’s manufacturer, giving them access to confidential knowledge. On purchasing the petitioner’s product online and analysing it in Delhi, the respondent claimed that infringement was confirmed and accordingly instituted an infringement suit under Section 104 before the Delhi High Court on 7 July 2025.
Thus, two competing suits were instituted within one week — the first in Bombay involving groundless threats, and the second in Delhi involving substantive patent infringement. Each party moved a transfer petition: the petitioner seeking transfer of the Delhi suit to Bombay, and the respondent seeking transfer of the Bombay suit to Delhi.
Issues
- Whether the infringement suit filed later in time before the Delhi High Court should be transferred to the Bombay High Court where the groundless threats suit was already pending.
- Whether issues raised in both suits substantially overlapped in terms of fact, law, and required evidence.
- Whether territorial jurisdiction invoked through online purchase and delivery of the impugned product in Delhi was determinative at the stage of transfer.
- Whether transferring the two suits to a single forum was necessary to prevent contradictory findings and judicial inefficiency.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner argued that the infringement suit pending in Delhi ought to be transferred to Bombay because the Bombay suit was filed first, giving rise to a prior cause for adjudication. It submitted that both parties had long-standing business presence in Mumbai with their registered offices located there, making Bombay the natural forum. It further contended that the respondent was engaging in forum shopping by invoking Delhi jurisdiction based solely on an online purchase delivered in Delhi — a contrived and insufficient basis that courts have discouraged.
The petitioner emphasised that the issues in both suits were substantially identical, as both centred around the alleged use of patented technologies in the petitioner’s purifier. If both suits proceeded independently before two High Courts, the parties risked conflicting judgments, duplication of evidence, and excessive judicial burden. It stressed that the respondent was already served with notice of the earlier Bombay suit and that all issues would be more efficiently adjudicated by the same forum. The petitioner therefore sought transfer of the infringement suit to Bombay.
Respondent’s Arguments
The respondent countered that the Delhi suit should not be transferred because it concerned the substantive issue of patent infringement, requiring technical and factual examination within the jurisdiction where the cause of action arose. It asserted that the Bombay suit was merely procedural and declaratory, relating only to groundless threats, whereas the Delhi suit sought full and substantive relief.
The respondent argued that jurisdiction in Delhi was properly invoked because patent infringement occurred when the alleged infringing product was purchased online and delivered in Delhi, thereby establishing sufficient territorial nexus under Section 104 of the Patents Act read with Section 20 of the CPC. It denied any allegation of forum shopping and asserted that the petitioner had already entered appearance in Delhi, demonstrating acceptance of the forum. Given the technical complexity and breadth of issues in the infringement suit, the respondent contended that the Delhi High Court was the appropriate forum.
Analysis of the Law
The Supreme Court emphasised the limited scope of jurisdiction under Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure, noting that it does not require adjudication on which suit is broader or which court has deeper jurisdiction. Instead, the Court must determine which forum is just, convenient, and efficient for the ends of justice.
Crucially, the Court analysed Section 106 of the Patents Act governing suits for groundless threats, noting that under the repealed 1911 Act, such suits were not maintainable once an infringement action commenced. However, the 1970 Act removed this bar, thereby recognising that a suit for groundless threats and a suit for infringement are independent causes of action. This statutory distinction demonstrates that both suits may legitimately coexist but requires courts to ensure that parallel proceedings do not undermine justice through inconsistency.
Upon examining the pleadings, the Court found that the allegations in both suits—whether of groundless threats or infringement—stemmed from the same product, same technology, same factual matrix, and overlapping legal issues. The suits would require the same evidence, same expert evaluation, and same technological analysis. Therefore, adjudicating them separately before two High Courts would lead to duplication, risk of conflicting decrees, and wastage of judicial time.
Precedent Analysis
Chitivalasa Jute Mills v. Jaypee Rewa Cement (2004)
This binding precedent was pivotal. The Supreme Court held that where two suits involve substantially the same parties, same transactions, and overlapping issues, they ought to be tried together to avoid contradictory judgments. The judgment highlighted that duplication of evidence and risk of inconsistent decrees are compelling grounds for transfer.
In the present matter, the Court applied this principle directly. It held that the issues of patent technology, alleged infringement, and impact of threats were so interlinked that separate adjudications were inappropriate.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court identified the following key findings:
- The Bombay suit preceded the Delhi suit.
- Jurisdiction in Delhi was invoked through an online purchase and delivery of the product, which, while valid for jurisdiction, did not negate the overlap of issues.
- Both suits involved identical factual and legal questions, particularly relating to whether the petitioner’s water purifier incorporated the respondent’s patented technology.
- Evidence required for both suits—including documents, expert testimony, technical analysis, and depositions—would be substantially similar.
- This created a serious risk of duplication, judicial waste, and conflicting findings.
The Court explicitly noted that saving judicial time and avoiding multiplicity of proceedings outweighed arguments relating to territorial jurisdiction, especially since both sides actively conducted business in Mumbai.
Therefore, relying on the overarching principles of judicial efficiency and fairness, the Court directed transfer of the infringement suit to Bombay.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court held that:
- Both suits concern overlapping issues arising from the same product and technological dispute.
- Separate adjudication before two High Courts risks inconsistent decrees and duplicated proceedings.
- The Bombay suit was filed earlier, and both parties have significant business presence in Mumbai.
- Therefore, the infringement suit pending before the Delhi High Court must be transferred to the Bombay High Court.
The transfer petition filed by the petitioner was allowed, and the competing transfer petition filed by the respondent was dismissed.
The Bombay High Court was directed to hear both matters together and dispose of pending injunction applications expeditiously.
Implications
- The judgment establishes clarity on consolidation of overlapping IP litigation in different High Courts.
- It underscores that judicial efficiency and prevention of conflicting decrees are central considerations under Section 25 CPC.
- It confirms that suits under Section 106 of the Patents Act and suits under Section 104 are independent causes of action, but may be consolidated when factual and legal overlap exists.
- It limits forum shopping by ensuring parties cannot create artificial jurisdiction merely through online purchase tactics.