##PAGE1##

1 TS (Com) – 33/2026

TS (Com) – 33/2026

Present: Ishani Chakravarty Banerjee (J.O Code.WB00890)

Judge, Commercial Court at Rajarhat, North 24 Parganas

CNR: WBNP19-000133-2026

Associated Broadcasting Company Pvt Ltd (“ABCPL”)

…. Plaintiff vs.

TV 19 Network & Ors.

…. Defendant

2

05.08.2026

1. The record is put up with the aid of a put up application along with the prayer of the learned Advocate for the Plaintiff for moving the application un- der Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Pro-

cedure, 1908 filed today.

2. It is reflected from the note of the Office that no Caveat is pending.

3. The put up is allowed.

4. At the very outset, the learned Advocate for the Plaintiff prayed for a dispensation from the mandatory compliance of pre-institution mediation as contemplated under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (here- inafter referred as the Act), for the purpose of seeking urgent interim relief by moving the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2, read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, praying for the grant of an ad-in-

terim injunction.

5. It is no longer res integra that Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 is imperative and the only exception with such requirement is where the plaint contemplate grant of urgent interim relief, supported by necessary facts and documents. The present position of law as it emanates from the Judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Dhanbad Fuels Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India as reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1129, is that a suit which con- templates an urgent interim relief may be filed without first resorting to media- tion as prescribed under Section 12A of the Act and no leave of Court is re-

2 TS (Com) – 33/2026

quired to be obtained for filing a suit without complying with Section 12A of the Act. It has further been clarified in the said judgement by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, that the test for “urgent interim relief” is to be deduced / in- ferred from the stand point of the plaintiff upon examination of the nature and the subject-matter of the suit and the cause of action and the same must not merely be an unfounded excuse to by-pass the mandatory provision of Section

12A of the said Act.

6. It is revealed from the plaint that it is a suit for infringement, passing off and injunction and in this context, it become relevant to bringforth the ob- servation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgement dated 27.10.2025 in Novenco Building and Industry A/S v. Xero Energy Engineering Solutions Pvt. Ltd., which has also been relied upon by the Ld Advocate for the peti- tioner, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that “…. The insistence of pre-institution mediation in a situation of ongoing infringement, in effect, would render the plaintiff remediless allowing the infringer to continue to profit under the protection of procedural formality. Section 12A of the Act was not intended to achieve such kind of anomalous result ....” and further held “In actions alleging continuing infringement of intellectual property rights, ur- gency must be assessed in the context of the ongoing injury and the public in-

terest in preventing deception”.

7. It now remains to be seen whether the instant suit, which concerns in-

fringement of copyright and damages, contemplates urgent interim relief with-

out invoking the mandatory provisions of Section 12A of the said Act.

8. The learned Advocate for the Plaintiff submitted that the Plaintiff is a leading news broadcasting and digital media company operating a nationwide network of television news channels and digital platforms under the well- known trade mark "TV9" since the year 2004. It was submitted that by reason of long, continuous and extensive use, substantial investment, nationwide broadcasting and digital presence, the Plaintiff has acquired immense goodwill and reputation in its registered trade marks, logo, artistic work, trade dress and colour combination. It was further submitted th