Commercial Court Cannot Decide Interim Relief Once Design Cancellation Is Pleaded: Gujarat High Court

The Gujarat High Court on 16 June held that the Commercial Court lacked jurisdiction to proceed with the injunction application once the defendant raised a plea for cancellation of the registered design as a defence.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice D.N. Ray allowed the appeal filed by Satyam Fashion against Meesho Technologies Private Limited and set aside the Surat Commercial Court's order dated 12 September 2025. It observed:

“In terms of Section 22(4) of the Act' 2000, the defendant has a right to seek cancellation of the designs which necessarily mandates the Courts to transfer the suit. The transfer of suit is a ministerial act if there is a prayer for cancellation of the registration. The civil suit in which there is plea to revoke the registered designs, has to be transferred to the High Court, where there is no ordinary original civil jurisdiction,”

Satyam Fashion filed a suit before the Commercial Court at Surat seeking a temporary injunction to restrain Meesho Technologies Private Limited and other defendants from infringing its registered design and passing off the design. The Commercial Court rejected the interim injunction application on 12 September 2025, which led to the present appeal before the High Court.

The High Court noted that the core issue did not concern the merits of the injunction but the statutory consequence under Section 22(4) of the Designs Act, 2000, which the Commercial Court failed to consider. The defendant challenged the validity of Satyam Fashion's registered design dated 6 February 2025 and contended that it lacked novelty and originality under Section 4 of the Act and had already been disclosed prior to registration.

Satyam Fashion argued before the Division Bench that once the defendant raised a cancellation plea under Section 19 of the Designs Act, Section 22(4) mandated transfer of the suit to the High Court and deprived the Commercial Court of jurisdiction to decide interlocutory relief.

The Division Bench accepted this submission and held that Section 22(4) required mandatory transfer of the suit and did not leave any discretion with the Commercial Court. It observed that the Commercial Court had no occasion to proceed with the interim injunction application once the defendant raised cancellation of the design as a defence.

Further, it noted that the Commercial Court recorded the defendant's written statement and defence but failed to apply Section 22(4) while deciding the injunction application.

Therefore, the Bench set aside the Commercial Court's order dated 12 September 2025 and directed the Commercial Court at Surat to transfer the suit to the High Court within one week of receiving its order.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the appeal.