Any perception of one High Court being better suited to a type of dispute is “entirely misguided and erroneous,” the Supreme Court has said, holding that there is No Hierarchy Among High Courts and moving a commercial IP suit between Karnataka and Tamil Nadu traders from Delhi to Madras.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has said it failed to understand why a Karnataka-based food company sued Chennai-based traders before the Delhi High Court when both sides are based in neighbouring States, and has transferred the commercial intellectual property suit to the Madras High Court [Sai Maghalakshmi Traders & Ors. v. M/s Sri Lakshmi Srinivasa Agro Foods & Anr.].
A Bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice R. Mahadevan allowed the transfer petition on October 28, 2026.
What the order directs
Holding that the interests of justice and expeditious disposal favoured transfer, the Court allowed the petition and transferred CS(COMM) 625/2026 from the Delhi High Court to the High Court of Judicature at Madras. The plaintiffs are at liberty to appear before the Madras High Court in person or through video conferencing.
The suit
M/s Sri Lakshmi Srinivasa Agro Foods, which has its principal place of business at Nelamangala in Bangalore Rural District, had filed CS(COMM) 625/2026 before the Delhi High Court against Sai Maghalakshmi Traders and others, who carry on business in Chennai.
The defendants moved the Supreme Court seeking transfer of the suit, with all pending applications, to the Madras High Court for trial and disposal.
Forum choice and the Court’s rebuke
The Bench noted that the Madras High Court also exercises original jurisdiction over such suits, and questioned the choice of Delhi. Making clear that convenience was not the only consideration, the Court held:
“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. 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.”
Where the parties, the genesis of the dispute and its factual locus are all in one place, the Court added, the courts of that place are ordinarily best placed to understand its nuances:
“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.”
Why the order matters
The Delhi High Court’s dedicated IP Division has long drawn trademark and copyright suits from across the country, often between parties with little or no connection to Delhi. The order makes clear that the availability of territorial jurisdiction in several courts does not by itself justify a choice of forum, and that litigants cannot pick a High Court on the assumption that it is better equipped than others.
By tying the appropriate forum to where the parties and the dispute are located, the Bench reaffirmed the equal constitutional standing of all High Courts. The ruling may be cited in transfer petitions and in objections to jurisdiction in IP suits filed far from where the parties actually do business.
Case Title: Sai Maghalakshmi Traders & Ors. v. M/s Sri Lakshmi Srinivasa Agro Foods & Anr. [Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 2221 of 2026]
Bench: Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice R. Mahadevan, Supreme Court of India
Date of Order: October 28, 2026
For the Petitioners: Advocates Lakshman Raja T and S.T. Stalin; AOR M.P. Srivignesh
For the Respondents: AOR Abhimanue Shrestha