Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Order In Commercial Disparagement Suit, Says It Was 'Bereft Of Reasons'

The Karnataka High Court has set aside a commercial court's order refusing to reject a plaint in a commercial disparagement suit, observing that the order was "bereft of reasons."

Justice Lalitha Kanneganti was hearing a writ petition filed by PARE Innovations Private Limited challenging an order of the Bengaluru Commercial Court dated April 15, 2026.

Vox Building Products Private Limited and Vox Interior and Exterior Solutions Private Limited had filed the underlying suit seeking a permanent injunction restraining PARE Innovations and others from publishing, circulating, or distributing a video or any part thereof, along with a public apology, a formal retraction of the disparaging statements made against the plaintiffs' product, and damages of Rs 10 crore for commercial disparagement, loss of reputation, loss of business, and the mental trauma and distress allegedly caused by the defendants' wrongful acts.

PARE Innovations filed an application seeking rejection of the plaint. It argued that the transactions were not commercial in nature, that the Commercial Court lacked jurisdiction, and that no cause of action had arisen within the trial court's jurisdiction, leaving it without territorial jurisdiction.

The trial court dismissed the application, holding that the defendants had circulated the allegedly disparaging video and sent private messages to the plaintiffs' customers within its territorial jurisdiction.

It noted that the plaintiffs had produced marketing accounts, the mail and documents annexed to the plaint, and WhatsApp chats to show that they carried on business in Bengaluru. The trial court also held that the dispute was commercial in nature. It observed that the question of territorial jurisdiction could not be decided without a detailed trial.

Before the High Court, PARE argued that the trial court had failed to consider the objections raised and the judgments relied upon by the petitioner before concluding that it had jurisdiction.

The High Court, on perusing the impugned order, agreed with PARE Innovations.

It held that "the impugned order does not disclose consideration of any judgments relied on by the counsel for the petitioner and the respondents, and it is bereft of reasons."

It further remarked that the trial court had "failed to give proper reasons for coming to such a conclusion."

The court accordingly set aside the trial court's order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, directing the trial court to decide the application within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

The writ petition was allowed, and all pending applications in the petition were closed.