Learned Counsel for Appellant-Defendant states, Learned Single Judge has erred in not considering: Respondent-Plaintiff had bypassed Section 12A of The Commercial Courts Act, 2015, which prescribes pre-institution mediation as a mandatory requirement.

Respondent-Plaintiff is not only a prior adopter but also a prior registrant and allegation of suppression is irrelevant. Court is in agreement, packaging and aesthetic of Appellant-Defendant’s products and Respondent-Plaintiff’s products are deceptively identical. Appellant-Defendant is prima facie dishonest.

Respondent-Plaintiff was rightly granted waiver of pre-institution mediation in terms of Section 12A of The Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

– Hon’ble Justice Manmohan and Hon’ble Justice Saurabh Banerjee of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, Veda Seed Sciences Pvt. Ltd. v. Kohinoor Seed Fields India Pvt. Ltd., [FAO(OS) (COMM) 326/2022] decided on 15.12.2022.

Mohamed Aboobacker Chank Lungi Pvt. Ltd. v. Revathy Textiles, [CS(COMM) 208/2022] decided on 27.09.2022: To be noted, expression used in sub section (1) of Section 12-A(1) is not merely ‘interim relief’, it is ‘urgent interim relief’. The term ‘contemplate’ deployed in Section 12-A(1) has not been defined.  It has not been defined in The General Clauses Act, 1897.

K. Varathan v. Prakash Babu Nakundhi Reddy, [CS(COMM) 202/2022] decided on 13.10.2022: Where urgency is of Plaintiff’s own doing, Plaintiff cannot take advantage of its own doing. High standard is required to establish requirement of prompt action (urgency).  

The narrative thus far, discussion and dispositive reasoning make it clear, urgency being attempted to be projected is a mirage as it is all Plaintiffs’ own making. The plaints are liable to be rejected.

– Hon’ble Justice M. Sundar of Hon’ble High Court of Madras, A.D. Padmasingh Isaac v. Karaikudi Achi Mess, [CS(COMM) 192/2022] decided on 23.11.2022.

_____

An application seeking wavier on account of an ‘urgent interim relief’ may assist Court. But, in absence of any statutory mandate, an application per se is not a condition under Section 12A and pleadings on record and oral submissions would be sufficient.

However, prayer for an ‘urgent interim relief’ should not be a disguise or mask to wriggle out of and get over Section 12A. It is difficult to agree with an absolute choice and right to paralyze Section 12A. A camouflage and guise to bypass ‘pre-litigation mediation’ should be checked when deception and falsity is apparent or established.

– Hon’ble Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Hon’ble Justice S.V.N. Bhatti, Yamini Manohar v. T.K.D. Keerthi, [Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 32275 of 2023] decided on 13.10.2023.

_____

It becomes clear from a perusal of Yamini Manohar v. T.K.D. Keerthi, (2024) 5 SCC 815, test under Section 12A of The Commercial Courts Act, 2015 is whether on an examination of nature and subject-matter of suit and cause of action, a prayer of an ‘urgent interim relief’ could be said to be ‘contemplable’. Further, what is also to be kept in mind by Courts is, an ‘urgent interim relief’ must not be merely an unfounded excuse to bypass mandatory requirement of Section 12A.

– Hon’ble Justice J.B. Pardiwala, M/s. Dhanbad Fuels Private Limited v. Union of India, [Civil Appeal No. 6846 of 2025] decided on 15.05.2025.

_____

M/s. Dhanbad Fuels Private Limited v. Union of India, (2025) SCC Online SC 1129 held, test under Section 12A of The Commercial Courts Act, 2015 is not whether a prayer for an ‘urgent interim relief’ actually comes to be allowed or not, but whether on examination of nature and subject-matter of suit and cause of action, a prayer for an ‘urgent interim relief’ could be said to be ‘contemplable’. It has been further held, an interim relief must not merely be an unfounded excuse to bypass mandatory requirement of Section 12A.

When imitation masquerades as innovation, it sows confusion among consumers, taints the market place and diminishes faith in sanctity of trade. The public interest, therefore, becomes the moral axis upon which the ‘urgency’ turns. The need to prevent confusion and to protect consumers from deception further imparts a colour of immediacy. Novenco Building and Industry A/S’s prayer for injunction cannot be characterised as a mere camouflage to evade mediation. It is a real grievance founded on continuing nature of infringement and irreparable prejudice likely to be caused by delay. High Court has proceeded on the premise, lapse of time between Novenco Building and Industry A/S’s discovery of infringement and filing of suit negated element of ‘urgency’. Such an approach, in our considered view, is contrary to principles laid down by this Court. High Court has also failed to take into account, present action is one of continuous infringement of intellectual property.

– Hon’ble Justice Alok Aradhe, Novenco Building and Industry A/S v. Xero Energy Engineering Solutions Private Ltd., [Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 2753 of 2025] decided on 27.10.2025.