The High Court of Madhya Pradesh has issued a definitive ruling determining that the mandatory pre-institution mediation requirement under Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, does not apply to commercial lawsuits that seek urgent interim relief. This decision, delivered by a Division Bench comprising Justice Subodh Abhyankar and Justice Jai Kumar Pillai, serves to clarify the procedural boundaries for trademark infringement cases, specifically where a plaint has been returned for lack of territorial jurisdiction and subsequently refiled in a competent court. The ruling reinforces that the legislative exemption for urgent matters remains a substantive safeguard, regardless of the procedural history or the date of refiling.

The dispute originated from a clash over intellectual property rights between M/S Kriti Nutrients Pvt Ltd and Naivedya Associates. Kriti Nutrients, asserting its ownership of the trademarks "KRITI" and "KIRTI," filed an initial suit in Delhi alleging that the defendant’s use of the mark "NAV KIRTI" constituted trademark infringement and passing off. The Delhi Commercial Court had granted an ex parte injunction in favor of the plaintiff in early 2021. However, the litigation took a procedural turn when the petitioner, Naivedya Associates, successfully challenged the territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi court. Consequently, in March 2023, the Delhi court ordered the return of the plaint to the respondent, granting the company liberty to institute the suit before the appropriate forum.

Upon presenting the suit before the Commercial Court in Indore in July 2023, Kriti Nutrients sought to maintain the status quo by filing an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, effectively requesting the continuation of the previously granted injunction. This action prompted Naivedya Associates to move for the rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The petitioner argued that the refiling in Indore constituted a fresh institution of a suit after the August 2022 cut-off established by the Supreme Court in Patil Automation Private Limited v. Rakheja Engineers Private Limited . According to the petitioner, the absence of prior mediation in this fresh filing rendered the suit legally unsustainable and subject to mandatory dismissal.

The trial court’s rejection of this application led to the current petition before the High Court. The petitioner’s legal strategy rested on the premise that a returned and refiled plaint is a de novo proceeding, stripping away the urgency associated with the original filing. However, the High Court’s examination of Section 12-A(1) of the Commercial Courts Act proved decisive in resolving the impasse. The Bench observed that the statute creates two distinct categories for commercial litigation: those that require mediation and those that are exempted due to the nature of the relief sought.

Parsing the Scope of Judicial Discretion

In its detailed analysis, the Court acknowledged the established principle that a refiled suit is a fresh institution, but it simultaneously underscored that this procedural reality does not automatically trigger a requirement for mediation if the core of the grievance remains urgent. The judges emphasized that the legislative intent behind the "urgent interim relief" exception is to prevent irreparable commercial harm. The Bench stated, “The court only has to see whether the plaintiff's suit 'contemplates' or seeks urgent interim relief.” By filing an injunction application alongside the plaint in Indore, the respondent had explicitly demonstrated a persistent need for immediate protection against the alleged infringement.

The Court further clarified that the judiciary is not required to adjudicate the underlying validity of past injunctions—such as the one vacated in Delhi—to determine the current necessity for mediation. Instead, the focus must remain on the plaintiff's stated demand for protection. The judgment highlights that the urgency inherent in intellectual property disputes—where public confusion and commercial loss can escalate on a daily basis—is a critical factor. The Bench remarked, “Since the present case falls squarely within the statutory exception, the respondent was not legally required to exhaust the remedy of pre-institution mediation before filing the suit at Indore.”

Balancing Statutory Mandates and Practical Necessity

The petitioner’s reliance on the landmark Patil Automation judgment and subsequent rulings was carefully weighed against the express statutory language of Section 12-A. While the High Court affirmed that Section 12-A is indeed a mandatory provision for most commercial filings, it held that this mandate is not an absolute bar that ignores the legislature’s clearly written exceptions. To hold otherwise would be to judicially repeal the very exemption designed to protect businesses facing immediate threats to their brand equity. The High Court’s interpretation ensures that the Commercial Courts Act facilitates, rather than hinders, the protection of proprietary rights.

The ruling is expected to provide significant clarity for legal practitioners navigating the complexities of territorial jurisdiction and refiling procedures. By distinguishing between the procedural "freshness" of a suit and its substantive character as an urgent matter, the High Court has prevented a situation where defendants could exploit jurisdictional shifts as a means to force mediation in cases where immediate judicial intervention is warranted.

With the High Court dismissing the miscellaneous petition, the focus now returns to the trial court. The Commercial Court at Indore is directed to proceed with the trial of the trademark infringement suit on its merits, effectively allowing the plaintiff’s application for interim protection to move forward as well. This finality ensures that the dispute over the "KRITI" and "NAV KIRTI" marks will be decided through a full adjudication of the evidence, unburdened by further procedural delays regarding the mediation requirement. The dismissal marks the end of this particular interlocutory challenge, clearing the path for the substantive issues of trademark dilution and infringement to be heard.