‘Urgent Relief’ Plea After Two-Year Delay Cannot Justify Bypassing Mandatory Mediation Under Section 12A of Commercial Courts Act: Himachal Pradesh High Court - 2025-09-04

HP High Court Rejects Zydus's Trademark Suit, Rules 'Urgent Relief' Plea Cannot Bypass Mandatory Mediation After Long Delay

Shimla: The Himachal Pradesh High Court has rejected a trademark infringement suit filed by Zydus Wellness Products Ltd., the makers of 'Glucon-D', holding that a plaintiff cannot bypass the mandatory requirement of pre-institution mediation under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, by claiming "urgent interim relief" after a significant delay in approaching the court.

Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, presiding over the case, ruled that the plea for urgency appeared to be a "camouflage" to circumvent the statutory mandate, particularly since Zydus was aware of the alleged infringement for nearly two years before filing the suit. The plaint was consequently rejected under Order VII, Rule 11(d) of the Civil Procedure Code for being barred by law.

Background of the Dispute

Zydus Wellness Products Ltd. filed a commercial suit against Karnal Foods Pack Cluster Limited and others, alleging infringement of its registered trademarks 'Glucon-D' and 'Glucon-C'. Zydus sought a permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from using deceptively similar marks like 'Glucose-D', 'Glucospoon-D', and 'Glucose-C'. Along with the main suit, Zydus filed an application for urgent interim injunction to halt the defendants' activities pending the trial.

Arguments Before the Court

The primary contention revolved around Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, which makes pre-institution mediation compulsory for all commercial suits, except those contemplating "urgent interim relief."

• Defendant's Arguments: Learned Senior Counsel for the defendant, Karnal Foods Pack Cluster Limited, argued for the rejection of the plaint. It was submitted that Zydus first became aware of the alleged infringement and issued a "Cease and Desist" notice in April 2023. By waiting nearly two years to file the suit, the plaintiff had negated any claim of genuine urgency. Citing Supreme Court precedents, the defendant argued that merely filing an application for an interim injunction is not enough; the court must scrutinize the facts to determine if the urgency is real or a tactic to bypass the mandatory mediation process.

• Plaintiff's Arguments: Counsel for Zydus countered that the cause of action was ongoing, with the latest infringement occurring in December 2024 when a defendant offered to sell the infringing products. They contended that the defendants' flagrant violation of Zydus's trademark rights necessitated immediate court intervention, thereby justifying the waiver of pre-institution mediation.

Court's Analysis and Legal Precedents

Justice Goel meticulously analyzed the timeline presented in Zydus's own plaint. The court noted that the "offending act" of alleged trademark infringement was known to the plaintiff since April 2023.

"As from the said date i.e. 28.04.2023 up to the filing of the Civil Suit, nothing new was being done by defendants No.1 and 2 except the alleged infringement of the trademarks of the plaintiff... This means that there was no qualitative change in the cause of action as from 28.04.2023 up to the filing of the Civil Suit."

The court relied heavily on landmark Supreme Court judgments, including Patil Automation Private Limited (2022) and Yamini Manohar (2024) , which established that Section 12A is mandatory. These precedents empower commercial courts to examine whether a prayer for urgent relief is a genuine need or a "disguise or mask to wriggle out" of the mediation requirement.

Justice Goel observed that Zydus's application for urgent relief failed to explain what new urgency had arisen that prevented it from undergoing the mediation process, especially when the alleged infringement had been continuing for a long time.

"There is no whisper in the application as to what necessitated the plaintiffs to seek urgent relief, by bypassing the statutory provisions of Section 12A of the Act... In this case, the application was filed just to bypass Section 12A of the Act."

The court concluded that since the situation had not materially changed since April 2023, the time required for mediation would not have caused any grave prejudice to Zydus.

Final Decision and Implications

Finding that the suit was filed without complying with the mandatory provisions of Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, the High Court allowed the defendant's application and rejected the plaint. The decision reinforces the principle that the exception for "urgent interim relief" under the Act is narrow and subject to judicial scrutiny. It serves as a caution to litigants that unexplained delays in approaching the court can undermine their claims of urgency and lead to the dismissal of their suits at the preliminary stage for non-compliance with pre-litigation mediation requirements.