SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Cal) 3291

CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
INDIAN EXPLOSIVES PVT LTD – Appellant
Versus
IDEAL DETONATORS PVT LTD AND ORS – Respondent
APD 13 / 2023



##PAGE1##

OCD-5

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

COMMERCIAL DIVISION

ORIGINAL SIDE

APD/13/2023

WITH

CS/48/2023

INDIAN EXPLOSIVES PVT LTD

VS

IDEAL DETONATORS PVT LTD AND ORS

BEFORE:

The Hon’ble JUSTICE DEBANGSU BASAK

-AND-

The Hon’ble JUSTICE MD. SHABBAR RASHIDI

For the Appellant : Mr. Ranjan Bachawat, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Rudraman Bhattacharyya, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Sourajit Dasgupta, Adv.

Mr. Bhavesh Garodia, Adv.

Mr. Subhankar Chakraborty, Adv.

Ms. Sayani Gupta, Adv.

For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Surajit Nath Mitra, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Chittapriya Ghosh, Adv.

Ms. Aiswariya Gupta, Adv.

Mr. Somesh Ghosh, Adv.

Mr. Soham Sanyal, Adv.

For Respondent Nos. 2, 6

& 7 : Mr. Utpal Bose, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Saptarshi Banerjee, Adv.

Mrs. Anisha Kochar, Adv.

HEARD ON : 05.05.2026

DELIVERED ON : 05.05.2026

##PAGE2##

2

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.

##PAGE3##

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

##PAGE4##

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 202

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top