There is no hierarchy among High Courts, and the idea that one High Court is better suited to a particular type of dispute is “entirely misguided and erroneous”, the Supreme Court has said. It transferred an intellectual property suit from the Delhi High Court to the Madras High Court, because both parties do business in South India and the Madras High Court also has original jurisdiction. The order was passed on 28 October 2026 in Sai Maghalakshmi Traders v. Sri Lakshmi Srinivasa Agro Foods by Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice R. Mahadevan.
Case at a glance
- Case: Sai Maghalakshmi Traders & Ors. v. M/s Sri Lakshmi Srinivasa Agro Foods & Anr.
- Case number: Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 2221 of 2026
- Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1150
- Bench: Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice R. Mahadevan
- Date: 28 October 2026
- Result: Transfer petition allowed. CS(COMM) 625/2026 moved from the Delhi High Court to the Madras High Court.
Facts
- The plaintiffs, whose principal place of business is in Nelmangala, Bangalore Rural District, Karnataka, filed a commercial intellectual property suit, CS(COMM) 625/2026, in the Delhi High Court.
- The defendants carry on business in Chennai, Tamil Nadu. They asked the Supreme Court to transfer the suit to the Madras High Court.
What the Supreme Court said
1. Why Delhi?
Both parties are in neighbouring southern States, and the Madras High Court also has original jurisdiction over the suit. The Court said it failed to understand why the plaintiffs went to Delhi (para 4).
2. No forum shopping, no hierarchy of High Courts
That several courts have territorial jurisdiction does not, by itself, justify forum shopping or a hierarchy among High Courts. A perception that one High Court is better for a certain type of dispute, such as intellectual property disputes, is “entirely misguided and erroneous” (para 5).
3. Local courts know the local case best
Where the parties and the facts are rooted in one place, the courts there are best placed to understand the nuances of the case (para 5).
4. Transfer serves justice
Transfer was justified by more than convenience: it served the interests of justice and the expedient disposal of the suit (para 6). The plaintiffs may appear before the Madras High Court in person or by video conferencing (paras 7 and 8).
The law in short
- The Supreme Court can transfer a suit from a court in one State to a court in another State under Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, when it is expedient for the ends of justice. The order itself does not cite the section.
- Commercial IP suits are often filed in Delhi because its High Court has original civil jurisdiction and a dedicated IP Division. This order makes clear that such a preference alone is not a reason to sue far from where the parties are.
Why it matters
- For defendants: if you are sued in a distant High Court though both sides and the dispute are local, a transfer petition is a real option.
- For plaintiffs and IP lawyers: choosing Delhi only for its IP reputation, with no real connection, risks a transfer and delay.
- For the system: the Court has firmly rejected any ranking among High Courts.