Introduction:

The Supreme Court of India has emphatically reiterated that no High Court can be regarded as superior or better equipped than another to adjudicate a particular category of disputes, including matters concerning intellectual property rights. Strongly disapproving of the perception that litigants may obtain a more favourable or specialised adjudication by approaching a particular High Court, the Court has cautioned against forum shopping and the creation of an artificial hierarchy among constitutional courts.

A Bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice R. Mahadevan made these significant observations while allowing a transfer petition filed by Sai Maghalakshmi Traders and Others, the defendants in a commercial suit instituted by M/s Sri Lakshmi Srinivasa Agro Foods and Another. The Supreme Court directed the transfer of the commercial suit, registered as CS(COMM) 625/2026, from the Delhi High Court to the High Court of Judicature at Madras.

The dispute arose from a commercial and intellectual property-related proceeding instituted by M/s Sri Lakshmi Srinivasa Agro Foods, whose principal place of business is situated at Nelamangala in Bengaluru Rural District, Karnataka. The defendants, Sai Maghalakshmi Traders and Others, carry on their business in Chennai, Tamil Nadu. Despite the parties having their business establishments in two neighbouring States, the plaintiffs instituted the proceedings before the Delhi High Court.

Aggrieved by the choice of forum, the defendants approached the Supreme Court seeking the transfer of the pending commercial suit to the Madras High Court for trial and disposal. Their request brought before the Court an important question concerning the appropriate forum for adjudicating commercial and intellectual property disputes when more than one High Court may possess jurisdiction.

The controversy was particularly significant in view of the established practice of instituting intellectual property disputes before High Courts that exercise original civil jurisdiction. Delhi has developed a substantial body of intellectual property jurisprudence and has a dedicated Intellectual Property Division. However, the existence of specialised judicial arrangements or the availability of jurisdiction in a particular High Court cannot, by itself, establish that the court is inherently more suitable than other High Courts.

The Supreme Court used the occasion to clarify that the constitutional status of High Courts does not permit litigants to treat one High Court as a preferred or superior forum for a particular category of litigation. Where several courts possess jurisdiction, the selection of the appropriate forum must be examined in accordance with the applicable legal principles and the actual circumstances connecting the dispute to the competing jurisdictions.

The Court also emphasised the importance of considering the geographical and factual connection of litigation. Ordinarily, where the parties, the origin of the dispute and the material factual circumstances are concentrated in a particular location, the courts situated in that location would be better positioned to appreciate the factual background and effectively adjudicate the controversy.

The judgment is therefore important not merely because it transfers one commercial suit from Delhi to Chennai, but also because it reinforces judicial equality, discourages arbitrary forum selection and highlights the importance of ensuring that litigation proceeds before a forum having a meaningful connection with the dispute.

Arguments of the Parties:

The petitioners, Sai Maghalakshmi Traders and Others, who were arrayed as defendants in the original commercial proceedings, approached the Supreme Court by filing a transfer petition seeking the withdrawal of CS(COMM) 625/2026 from the Delhi High Court and its transfer to the Madras High Court.

Their request was founded on the geographical circumstances surrounding the dispute and the location of the parties’ respective business establishments. The petitioners carried on business in Chennai, Tamil Nadu, whereas the respondents, who had instituted the commercial suit, maintained their principal place of business at Nelamangala in Bengaluru Rural District, Karnataka.

The petitioners sought the transfer of the proceedings to the Madras High Court, which also possessed original jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The circumstances demonstrated that the dispute had a substantial geographical connection with the southern region of the country, particularly Tamil Nadu and Karnataka, rather than Delhi.

The petitioners’ request raised the question of whether the continuation of proceedings before the Delhi High Court was justified when the parties were conducting their businesses in neighbouring States and another competent High Court was available to adjudicate the matter.

The transfer request also required consideration of the practical aspects associated with conducting commercial litigation. Proceedings of this nature may involve the participation of parties, advocates, witnesses and other persons connected with the underlying transactions. The geographical location of the businesses and the factual background of the dispute can consequently become relevant while determining whether a transfer would advance the interests of justice.

The petitioners accordingly requested the Supreme Court to exercise its transfer jurisdiction and direct that the proceedings be heard by the Madras High Court.

On the other hand, M/s Sri Lakshmi Srinivasa Agro Foods and Another were the plaintiffs in the original commercial suit and the respondents in the transfer proceedings. They had chosen to institute the suit before the Delhi High Court, notwithstanding that their principal business establishment was located in Karnataka and the defendants carried on business in Chennai.

The respondents were represented before the Supreme Court by their advocates, including Abhimanue Shrestha, Animesh Rastogi, Neha Rastogi and Sandhya Rastogi. However, the available account of the Supreme Court’s order does not set out any detailed substantive submissions advanced by the respondents explaining their choice of Delhi as the forum or opposing the transfer.

It would therefore be inappropriate to attribute specific arguments concerning the merits of the intellectual property dispute, the territorial jurisdiction of Delhi or the comparative convenience of the competing forums to either side without support from the judicial record.

Nevertheless, the central question before the Supreme Court was whether the circumstances justified transferring the pending suit to another competent High Court. The Court was required to examine the geographical relationship between the parties and the dispute, the availability of original jurisdiction before the Madras High Court and the broader interests of justice.

Importantly, the Supreme Court did not treat the mere availability of jurisdiction before the Delhi High Court as sufficient reason to allow the proceedings to continue there irrespective of all other circumstances. Instead, it examined whether the choice of forum and the practical considerations surrounding the litigation justified the petitioners’ request for transfer.

Court’s Judgment:

The Supreme Court allowed the transfer petition and directed that the commercial suit pending before the Delhi High Court be transferred to the Madras High Court. In arriving at its decision, the Bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice R. Mahadevan made important observations concerning the independence, equal standing and jurisdictional competence of High Courts across the country.

The Court began by addressing the broader misconception that a particular High Court may be more suitable than others for adjudicating certain categories of litigation, particularly intellectual property disputes.

It acknowledged that more than one High Court may possess jurisdiction to entertain a particular dispute. This situation is not uncommon in intellectual property litigation, where the territorial jurisdiction of courts may arise from different connecting factors recognised under the applicable laws.

However, the Court made it clear that the existence of multiple competent forums should not encourage litigants to develop an artificial preference for one High Court over another. It observed:

“While it could be true that various High Courts may have the jurisdiction to hear a particular case, especially in the case of intellectual property disputes, any perception of a particular High Court being better suited to hearing a particular type of dispute is entirely misguided and erroneous.”

This observation forms the central principle emerging from the judgment. The Court rejected the assumption that a High Court should be preferred merely because it has developed greater visibility, a specialised division or a perceived reputation in a particular area of law.

The constitutional position of High Courts is fundamentally important in this regard. High Courts exercise judicial authority within the constitutional framework and discharge their responsibilities independently. Their jurisdictional competence cannot be evaluated through assumptions that one constitutional court is inherently superior to another in deciding a particular class of cases.

The Supreme Court’s observation consequently reinforces the principle that judicial competence is not determined by institutional reputation or geographical preference. Every High Court exercising jurisdiction over a matter is expected to adjudicate it in accordance with the law, the evidence and the applicable judicial principles.

Forum Shopping Cannot Be Justified Merely Because Multiple Courts Have Jurisdiction

The Bench next addressed the problem of forum shopping. Forum shopping refers, broadly, to the practice of selecting a particular court or jurisdiction from among available forums in the hope of obtaining a more favourable procedural or substantive outcome.

The Court cautioned that the mere existence of territorial jurisdiction in several courts cannot automatically become a justification for choosing a particular forum without regard to the actual circumstances of the dispute.

In this regard, it observed:

“The mere existence of territorial jurisdiction in various courts cannot on its own become justification for forum shopping and cannot result in the perpetuation of notions of a hierarchy among the High Courts of this country.”

The observation is significant because it distinguishes the legal availability of jurisdiction from the appropriateness of choosing a particular forum in the circumstances of an individual case.

Where multiple courts possess jurisdiction, the plaintiff may have a choice under the applicable statutory provisions. However, the existence of such a choice does not mean that the geographical and factual circumstances surrounding the dispute become irrelevant when the question of transfer arises.

The Supreme Court was particularly concerned that the perception of one High Court being preferable to another could gradually create an unwarranted judicial hierarchy. Such an approach would undermine the equal constitutional standing of High Courts and encourage litigants to select forums based on perceived institutional advantages rather than legitimate considerations connected with the dispute.

The judgment therefore sends a clear message that the jurisdiction of a court should not be treated as an opportunity to engage in arbitrary forum selection.

Importance of the Factual and Geographical Connection of the Dispute

Another important aspect of the judgment was the Court’s emphasis on the relationship between the dispute and the location in which it originated.

The Bench observed that where the parties, the genesis of the dispute and its factual locus are based in a particular location, the courts situated in that location would ordinarily be most suited to understand the nuances of the controversy.

The Court stated:

“We also wish to highlight that, ordinarily, in a case whose respective parties, genesis and factual locus are based in a particular location, the courts of the said location would be most suited to understanding the nuances of that case.”

This reasoning highlights the practical significance of the factual background of litigation while determining whether a transfer is justified.

Commercial disputes frequently involve business transactions, commercial relationships, documentary evidence and other circumstances connected with the parties’ places of business. The location of the parties and the factual origin of the controversy may therefore have an important bearing on the efficient conduct of proceedings.

The Court did not lay down an inflexible rule that every commercial dispute must necessarily be heard in the State where the parties carry on business. Rather, it recognised that the geographical connection of the dispute is an important consideration that should ordinarily be taken into account.

The use of the expression “ordinarily” is particularly relevant. It indicates that the Court was identifying a guiding consideration rather than creating an absolute jurisdictional requirement. Other circumstances may justify proceedings before a different forum, depending on the facts and applicable law.

In the present matter, the geographical connection was particularly apparent. The defendants carried on business in Chennai, while the plaintiffs had their principal place of business at Nelamangala in Karnataka. Both locations are situated in neighbouring southern States.

The Court consequently found it difficult to understand why the plaintiffs had instituted the suit before the Delhi High Court when the Madras High Court also possessed original jurisdiction to entertain it.

Court Questions the Choice of Delhi High Court

The Bench expressed its surprise at the respondents’ decision to approach the Delhi High Court despite the parties having their business establishments in Tamil Nadu and Karnataka.

It observed:

“We fail to understand as to why the respondents/plaintiffs have filed the suit before the Delhi High Court when both the parties are residing in the neighbouring States of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu and the Madras High Court also has original jurisdiction to entertain the suit.”

This observation demonstrated that the Court was not examining the transfer request merely from the perspective of the convenience of the defendants.

The availability of original jurisdiction before the Madras High Court was an important consideration. The Court found that the proposed transferee court was competent to entertain the commercial suit and that the parties’ geographical circumstances supported the transfer.

The decision also brings attention to the distinction between possessing jurisdiction and being the most appropriate forum in the circumstances of a particular case. A court may have jurisdiction under the applicable legal framework, but the exercise of the Supreme Court’s transfer power requires consideration of whether the transfer would serve the interests of justice.

The Bench found that the facts of the present dispute justified such an exercise of jurisdiction.

Legal Basis for Transfer Under Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure

The transfer of civil proceedings between courts situated in different States falls within the framework of Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Section 25 empowers the Supreme Court, on an application by a party and after notice to the parties and hearing those who desire to be heard, to transfer a suit, appeal or other proceeding from a High Court or civil court in one State to a High Court or civil court in another State, provided that such transfer is expedient for the ends of justice.

The provision is intended to ensure that the geographical distribution of judicial proceedings does not obstruct the fair and effective administration of justice.

The power under Section 25 is discretionary and must be exercised judicially. A transfer cannot be ordered merely because one party finds another forum more convenient. The Supreme Court must be satisfied that the circumstances justify transferring the proceeding in the interests of justice.

In the present case, the Court considered the location of the parties, the geographical connection of the controversy, the availability of original jurisdiction before the Madras High Court and the practical considerations associated with the disposal of the suit.

The decision reflects the application of the broader principle underlying Section 25: the power of transfer exists to advance justice rather than to accommodate an arbitrary preference for a particular court.

It is also important to distinguish the transfer jurisdiction from the ordinary rules governing territorial jurisdiction. The Supreme Court’s order did not declare that the Delhi High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Instead, it concluded that the circumstances made a transfer to the Madras High Court appropriate.

Accordingly, the judgment should not be interpreted as holding that every intellectual property suit instituted before the Delhi High Court involving parties from other States must be transferred. The decision is based on the particular geographical and practical circumstances placed before the Court.

Transfer Was Not Based on Convenience Alone

The Supreme Court further clarified that its decision was not founded exclusively on the convenience of the petitioners.

The Bench specifically considered the overall circumstances and concluded that the petitioners had established sufficient grounds for transferring the suit. It also examined the broader objective of ensuring the expedient disposal of the proceedings.

The Court observed:

“We therefore, find that the petitioner has made out a case for transfer of the suit from the Delhi High Court to the Madras High Court. We also find that the interests of justice would be served in the instant case, having regard to the fact that the parties are carrying on their respective businesses in the neighbouring States of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu and therefore for the expediency of disposal and bearing in mind all practical aspects, the Transfer Petition is liable to be allowed.”

This portion of the judgment is particularly important because it explains the basis on which the transfer power was exercised.

The Court did not regard the petitioners’ geographical convenience as an isolated or decisive factor. Instead, it assessed the circumstances collectively and concluded that the transfer would better serve the interests of justice.

The reference to the expediency of disposal also highlights the importance of avoiding unnecessary practical difficulties in conducting litigation. The efficient administration of commercial justice requires courts to consider the factual setting of disputes and the circumstances in which proceedings are likely to be conducted.

The Supreme Court’s approach demonstrates that transfer applications must be evaluated on their individual merits. The relevant inquiry is not simply whether another court is more convenient, but whether transferring the proceeding would be justified by the overall circumstances and would advance the ends of justice.

Final Decision

After considering the circumstances, the Supreme Court allowed the transfer petition filed by Sai Maghalakshmi Traders and Others.

The Bench directed that Commercial Suit No. CS(COMM) 625/2026, pending before the Delhi High Court at New Delhi, be transferred to the High Court of Judicature at Madras.

The operative direction stated:

“Accordingly, the Transfer Petition is allowed and the case viz., CS(COMM) 625/2026 on the file ofthe High Court of Delhi at New Delhi is transferred to the High Court of Judicatu