The Supreme Court of India has transferred a commercial intellectual property suit from the Delhi High Court to the Madras High Court, firmly ruling that forum selection cannot be driven by any perception that one High Court is better equipped to adjudicate a specific category of disputes. The order was delivered on 11 November 2026 by a bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice R. Mahadevan.

Background of the Transfer Petition

The transfer petition was filed by Sai Maghalakshmi Traders, Sri Lakshmi Srinivasa Enterprises, and M.P.K. Traders — the defendants in the original suit — against M/s Sri Lakshmi Srinivasa Agro Foods and SLS Agro Ventures. The original commercial suit, bearing case number CS(COMM) 625/2026, had been instituted by the plaintiffs before the Delhi High Court.

The apex court noted that the petitioners carry on business in Chennai, while the plaintiffs have their principal place of business at Nelamangala in Karnataka's Bengaluru Rural district — both parties thus operating out of neighbouring southern states, far removed from Delhi.

What the Supreme Court Observed

The Justice Nagarathna-led bench raised pointed questions about the choice of forum, stating: "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."

The bench was unequivocal that the issue extended well beyond mere party convenience. It called the perception of a particular High Court being better suited to hear a specific category of disputes "entirely misguided and erroneous", adding that territorial jurisdiction alone cannot justify forum shopping or perpetuate notions of hierarchy among the country's High Courts.

Key Legal Principle: No Hierarchy Among High Courts

The Supreme Court articulated a broader principle of judicial equality: "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 court further emphasised that where the parties, the genesis of the dispute, and its factual locus are rooted in a particular location, courts in that region are ordinarily better positioned to appreciate the nuances of the case. This reasoning reinforced the transfer on substantive as well as procedural grounds.

Earlier Proceedings and the Transfer Order

The transfer petition had previously come before the apex court on 10 August, when a bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar had issued notice to the respondents and stayed further proceedings in the commercial suit before the Delhi High Court. The final order now directs that the case be transferred in full to the High Court of Judicature at Madras.

The court also clarified that the respondents retain the liberty to appear before the transferee court either in person or through video conferencing, easing any geographic burden on the plaintiffs.

Implications for Intellectual Property Litigation

The ruling carries significance beyond this individual dispute. Forum shopping — the practice of selecting a court perceived to be more favourable — has long been a concern in Indian commercial litigation, particularly in intellectual property matters where certain High Courts have historically been viewed as more experienced. This judgment signals that the Supreme Court is prepared to intervene when such perceptions distort the natural venue for a dispute. Notably, this reinforces an evolving judicial stance that the interests of justice and expeditious disposal must anchor venue decisions, not strategic advantage.