Quia Timet III

Learned Counsel for Appellant-Defendant states, Learned Single Judge has erred in not considering: Respondent-Plaintiff had bypassed Section 12A of The Commercial Court 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.