1. Appeal against revocation of dispensation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Cal) 3291
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Debangsu Basak, Md. Shabbar Rashidi, JJ
Indian Explosives Pvt Ltd – Appellant
Versus
Ideal Detonators Pvt Ltd – Respondent
APD/13/2023|CS/48/2023
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ranjan Bachawat, Rudraman Bhattacharyya, Sourajit Dasgupta, Bhavesh Garodia, Subhankar Chakraborty, Sayani Gupta
For the Respondents: Surajit Nath Mitra, Chittapriya Ghosh, Aiswariya Gupta, Somesh Ghosh, Soham Sanyal, Utpal Bose, Saptarshi Banerjee, Anisha Kochar
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ranjan Bachawat, Rudraman Bhattacharyya, Sourajit Dasgupta, Bhavesh Garodia, Subhankar Chakraborty, Sayani Gupta
For the Respondents: Surajit Nath Mitra, Chittapriya Ghosh, Aiswariya Gupta, Somesh Ghosh, Soham Sanyal, Utpal Bose, Saptarshi Banerjee, Anisha Kochar
The mandatory pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, cannot be bypassed by claiming urgency if the plaintiff has waited for an extended period (e.g., 5 years) to initiate proceedings, and such leave can be recalled if obtained through deception.
Headnote:(A) Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - Section 12A - Pre-institution Mediation - Mandatory nature of provisions - Dispensation of mandatory pre-institution mediation can be granted for urgent interim relief, but such dispensation must not be obtained through ruse or deception. Where a plaintiff waits for several years (in this case, over 5 years) before approaching the court, the claim of urgency for bypassing Section 12A is not sustainable. (Para 19, 20, 21)
(B) Judicial Review of Dispensation - Recall of Leave - Once leave under Section 12A is granted, the Court is not powerless to revisit the issue or recall such leave if it is found that the leave was obtained through deception, falsity, or fraud. (Para 17)
Issues: Whether the dispensation granted under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 was justified given the delay in filing the suit after the alleged cause of action arose.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Appellant argued leave was properly granted; respondent argued leave was obtained through deception and falsity. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 )
3. No urgent interim relief needed; plaintiff waited over five years; dispensation not warranted. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 )
4. Leave under Section 12A may be revisited if obtained by fraud, deception, or falsity. (Para 17 , 19 )
5. Appeal dismissed with no order as to costs. (Para 22 , 23 )
6. When can a court revisit leave granted under Section 12A?
When leave was obtained through fraud, deception, or falsity, the court is not powerless to recall it. (Para 17 )
7. Is compliance with Section 12A mandatory?
Yes, provisions of Section 12A are mandatory; parties must not act in derogation of them. (Para 20 )
8. What is the standard for granting dispensation under Section 12A?
The court must consider the plaintiff's perception of urgent interim relief; it must not be used to defeat mandatory provisions. (Para 19 )
9. What constitutes a valid ground for urgent interim relief under Section 12A?
There must be a real need for urgent intervention; a delay of over five years does not justify urgency. (Para 18 , 21 )
DEBANGSU BASAK, J.:-
1. Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated July 11,
2023 passed in GA/2/2023 in CS/48/2023.
2. By the impugned judgment and order, learned Single Judge
allowed the application of the defendant no. 1 in the suit, seeking
revocation of the dispensation granted under Section 12A of the
Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Learned Single Judge held that
there was no ground seeking dispensation with the requirement of
Section 12A of the Act of 2015. The averments made in the plaint
did not warrant dispensation under Section 12A of the Act of
2015. The provisions of the pre-institution mediation must be
complied with. Consequently, learned Single Judge, rejected the
plaint.
3. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that,
leave under Section 12A of the Act of 2015 was granted to the
appellant on March 23, 2023. Interim order was granted in favour
of the appellant on March 27, 2023.
4. Referring the merits of the case, learned Senior Advocate
appearing for the appellant submits that, the defendant no. 2 was
an employee of the appellant. Defendant no. 2 was obliged not to
part with any confidential information during his employment with
the appellant to any third party. In breach of such confidentiality
agreement, the defendant no. 2 parted with confidential
informations to the defendant no. 1. Consequently, the defendant
no. 2, infringed the copyrights existing in favour of the appellant.
3
5. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant refers to the
various averments made in the plaint and in particular to
paragraph 21 thereof. He submits that, the defendant no. 2
indulged in such activities since 2016. Such activities were not
known to the appellant, till its discovery in 2022. Immediately on
discovery of such illegal activities, a criminal complaint was filed.
Thereafter, the present suit was instituted in the month of March,
2023 when, leave under Section 12A of the Act of 2015 was
obtained and as also an interim order.
6. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant relies upon
2023 SCC Online Cal 2443 (Gavrill Metal Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Maira
Fabricators Pvt. Ltd.), 2023 SCC Online SC 1382 (Yamini
Manohar Vs. T.K.D Keerthi) and 2025 SCC Online SC 2278
(Novenco Building and Industry A/S Vs. Xero Energy
Engineering Solutions Private Ltd and Another) to contend that,
leave under Section 12A of the Act of 2015 ought not to be
recalled, at least, in the facts and circumstances of the present
case. According to him, learned Single Judge erred in doing so.
7. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the defendant no. 1
submits that, the provisions of Section 12A of the Act of 2015 are
mandatory. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, he
submits that, the appellant tried to overcome such mandatory
provisions. The appellant should not be permitted to do so.
8. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the defendant no. 1 draws
the attention of the Court to the pleadings of the plaint and in
particular to paragraph 21 thereof. He submits that, in the earlier
4
portions of the pleadings of the plaint, the appellant did not aver
that, the appellant was not aware of the incidents happening since
2016. He submits that, the incidents occurring were from 2016.
9. Relying upon 2026: CHC-OS-117-DB (Unique Enterprenuers and
Finance Limited and Anr. Vs. Really Agritech Private Limited
and Anr.), he submits that, the authorities cited by the appellant
were noted therein. He submits that, the leave under Section 12A
of the Act of 2015 was obtained through deception and falsity and
therefore, the same was correctly withdrawn by the learned Single
Judge, by the impugned judgment and order.
10. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent nos. 2, 6
and 7 adopts the submissions made on behalf of the defendant no.
1.
11. Appellant filed a suit claiming reliefs with regard to alleged
infringement of copyrights in the artistic drawings. In the plaint,
the appellant averred that, the defendant no. 2 was an employee of
the appellant since 2
