Understanding Article 227’s Supervisory Role
Article 227 of the Indian Constitution bestows the High Courts with a sweeping power of superintendence over all subordinate courts and tribunals within their jurisdiction, except armed forces tribunals. This provision ensures judicial bodies operate within their defined authority, forming an integral part of the constitutional framework.
The Commercial Courts Act and Its Implications
The Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (CC Act) was introduced to streamline the resolution of commercial disputes. It grants Commercial Courts exclusive jurisdiction for cases with a monetary threshold exceeding ₹3 lakhs, as per Section 12 of the Act. A key feature of this Act is Section 8, which restricts “civil revision applications or petitions” against interlocutory orders issued by Commercial Courts, aiming to expedite legal proceedings.
Karnataka High Court’s Landmark Judgment
The question of whether Section 8 of the CC Act limits Article 227’s supervisory jurisdiction was a subject of debate until the Karnataka High Court’s ruling in Kanpur Flowercycling Private Limited v. M/s. Sarathi International Inc., WP No. 30565 of 2025, delivered on June 4, 2026. Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju clarified that Section 8 does not impede Article 227 petitions. This decision reaffirms the High Court’s supervisory power as a constitutional mandate that cannot be overridden by legislative provisions.
Addressing Forum Shopping in Intellectual Property Cases
The Karnataka High Court’s decision also tackled forum shopping in intellectual property disputes. The case involved a trademark infringement over the mark “TULASI.” Initially, the plaintiff claimed that the dispute’s value exceeded the statutory threshold, transferring it to the Commercial Court. However, they later argued the value was below the threshold, seeking to return the case to the Civil Court. The High Court deemed this inconsistent valuation practice impermissible, emphasizing the need for consistency and transparency in legal proceedings.
Article 227’s Constitutional Standing
The Court held that Article 227’s supervisory power is protected by the Constitution’s basic structure, making it immune to legislative restrictions like those in Section 8 of the CC Act. Citing cases from various High Courts, the Court underscored that the term “petition” in Section 8 does not cover Article 227 petitions. The judgment aligns with decisions from the Delhi, Bombay, Gujarat, and Madras High Courts, further solidifying Article 227’s role.
More Read
Defining the Scope of Article 227
While affirming Article 227’s applicability, the Court laid down a framework to prevent its misuse. It stressed that this jurisdiction should be exercised sparingly and only in cases of grave injustice or jurisdictional errors. Routine use of Article 227 to interfere with Commercial Court proceedings is discouraged, ensuring that the CC Act’s objective of swift dispute resolution is upheld.
Looking Forward
The Karnataka High Court’s judgment in Kanpur Flowercycling not only reinforces Article 227’s constitutional significance but also establishes guidelines to curb forum shopping and maintain procedural integrity under the CC Act. This ruling is a pivotal step in balancing the swift resolution of commercial disputes with the constitutional oversight of the High Courts.
About the Author
Palak Sharma is a Senior Associate at Bahuguna Law Associates.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Bar & Bench.
