##PAGE1##

$~55

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ CS(COMM) 1329/2025 & I.A. 31149-31151/2025 I.A. 31153/2025

MR. SUNIL GAVASKAR .....Plaintiff

Through: Mr. Gopal Jain, Sr. Advocate with

Mr. Vidushpat Singhania, Ms.

Aashita Khanna, Ms. Aanya Agarwal,

Mr. Karti Keya Prasad and Mr. Rahul

Trivedi, Advocates

versus

CRICKET TAK (CRICKETTAK557) AND ORS

.....Defendants

Through: Mr. Varun Pathak, Mr. Akhil

Shandilya and Ms. Varsha Jhavar,

Advocates for D-7

Mr. Aditya Gupta, Ms. Asavari Jain

and Ms. Vani Kaushik, Advocates for

D-11

Mr. Rohan Jaitley, CGSC, Mr. Dev

Pratap Shahi, Mr. Varun Pratap

Singh, Advs. for UOI/D-12 and 13

CORAM:

HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

O R D E R

% 23.12.2025

I.A. 31153/2025 (application under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts

Act seeking exemption for instituting pre-litigation mediation)

1. The present application has been filed by the Plaintiff seeking

exemption from instituting pre-litigation mediation under Section 12A of the

Commercial Courts Act, 2015 [‘Act of 2015’] read with Section 151 of the

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [‘CPC’].

CS(COMM) 1329/2025 Page 1 of 14

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 19/01/2026 at 22:23:55

2. Having regard to the facts of the present suit contemplates urgent

interim relief and in light of the of the Supreme Court in Yamini Manohar

v. T.K.D. Krithi, (2024) 5 SCC 15., exemption from the requirement of pre-institution

mediation is granted to the Plaintiff.

3. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.

I.A. 31151/2025(seeking leave to file additional documents)

4. This is an application filed under Order XI Rule 1(4) of the Act of

2015 read with Section 151 of the CPC, 1908, seeking leave to file

additional documents.

5. Learned senior counsel for the Plaintiff states that, at this stage, this

relief is not pressed.

6. Accordingly, this application is disposed of, with liberty reserved

next.

CS(COMM) 1329/2025

Deletion of Defendant Nos. 1 and 11

7. Mr. Gopal Jain, learned senior counsel for the Plaintiff, states on

instructions that he is not pressing the infringing link vis-à-vis Defendant

No. 1 on the social media platform of Defendant No. 11, and makes an oral

prayer that Defendant Nos. 1 and 11 may be deleted from the array of

parties.

8. Accordingly, Defendant Nos. 1 and 11 are hereby deleted from the

array of parties.

Summons vis-à-vis the remaining Defendants

9. Let the plaint be registered as a suit

CS(COMM) 1329/2025 Page 2 of 14

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 19/01/2026 at 22:23:55

10. Issue summons to Defendant Nos. 2, 4, 5, 8, and 9 [‘infringing

Defendants’] upon filing of the amended memo of parties.

11. The summons shall indicate that the written statement(s) must be filed

within thirty [30] days from the date of receipt of the summons. The

infringing Defendants shall also file affidavit(s) of admission/denial of the

documents filed by the Plaintiff, failing which the written statement(s) shall

not be taken on record.

12. The Plaintiff is at liberty to file replication(s) thereto within thirty [30]

days after filing of the written statement(s). The replication(s) shall be

accompanied by affidavit of admission/denial in respect of the documents

filed by the infringing Defendants, failing which the replication(s) shall not

be taken on record.

13. It is made clear that any unjustified denial of documents may lead to

an order of costs against the concerned party.

14. Any party seeking inspection of documents may do so in accordance

with the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018.

15. No summons has been issued to Defendant Nos. 7, 10, 12 and 13

since they are proforma defendants and appropriate directions have been

issued to them in the injunction ap