Civil court jurisdiction over domain name disputes remains intact where the policy offers limited remedies and no binding arbitration agreement.

Civil court jurisdiction under Section 9 CPC is excluded only by express bar or necessary implication, and that exclusion is not lightly inferred. The text states that the IN Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy did not create a comprehensive statutory forum capable of deciding trade mark infringement, passing off, transfer of domain name and rendition of accounts, and it also did not rest on a bilateral arbitration agreement binding the plaintiffs. Its limited remedial scope and the possibility of civil proceedings meant the suit was not barred, so rejection of the plaint was not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the IN Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy ousted the civil court's jurisdiction over a pending suit seeking injunction, transfer of domain name, rendition of accounts, passing off and trade mark infringement reliefs; and whether the defendants could rely on the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to seek rejection of the plaint.

Analysis: The governing principle under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is that civil court jurisdiction is excluded only by express bar or necessary implication, and such exclusion is not readily inferred. Applying the settled tests, the Policy did not create a statutory forum with comprehensive powers to determine all rights and liabilities arising in the suit. Its remedial scope was confined to cancellation or transfer of the domain name and costs, whereas the suit also sought reliefs for trade mark infringement, passing off, and rendition of accounts. The Policy was not a legislative enactment, and the arbitral mechanism contemplated by it did not rest on a bilateral arbitration agreement binding the plaintiffs. The scheme of the Policy and its Rules also contemplated the possibility of court proceedings, indicating that civil litigation was not barred.

Conclusion: The INDRP did not exclude the jurisdiction of the civil court, and the application for rejection of the plaint was not maintainable.

Ratio Decidendi: Civil court jurisdiction is not ousted unless the special forum provides a clear bar and an adequate mechanism to decide all disputes and grant all ordinary civil remedies, and a non-statutory policy with limited remedies and no arbitration agreement cannot displace that jurisdiction.

---