Summary
In the case of Zydus Wellness Products Ltd. v. Karnal Foods Pack Cluster Limited, involving the trademarks "Glucon-D" and "Glucon-C", the Himachal Pradesh High Court ruled that pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act is mandatory for commercial disputes unless the suit genuinely contemplates urgent interim relief. The Court rejected the plaintiff’s plaint for failing to comply with this requirement, stating that the urgency claimed was not adequately demonstrated.
Background
Trademark Infringement Dispute
Zydus Wellness Products Ltd. filed a commercial suit for trademark infringement against Karnal Foods Pack Cluster Limited and others, seeking multiple reliefs including injunctions and damages. The plaintiff claimed that the defendants were selling glucose-based drink products under marks deceptively similar to its registered trademarks, “Glucon-D” and “Glucon-C”. The suit was accompanied by an application for urgent interim relief.
In response, the defendants filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Civil Procedure Code, seeking rejection of the plaint for failure to comply with mandatory pre-litigation mediation as required under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
Questions Before the Court
- Whether pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act is mandatory in this case.
- Whether the plaintiff’s claim of urgency justified bypassing pre-litigation mediation.
- Whether the plaint was liable to be rejected for being barred by law.
Arguments Presented By the Parties
Defendants:
- Argued that the suit was barred under Section 12A since no pre-litigation mediation was undertaken.
- Stated that the exception for urgent relief did not apply because the plaintiff had waited over a year after first issuing a cease and desist notice in 2023.
- Contended that the claim of urgency was not bona fide and was only raised to circumvent mandatory mediation.
Plaintiff:
- Argued that the suit contemplated urgent relief due to ongoing trademark infringement.
- Claimed that infringing products were being sold online and a WhatsApp message offering infringing goods was received as late as December 2024.
- Stated that the plaint and interim application clearly demonstrated the need for immediate court intervention.
Court’s Analysis
Analysis of Pre-Litigation Mediation Requirement The Court stated that Section 12A(1) of the Commercial Courts Act clearly mandates that no commercial suit shall be instituted unless the plaintiff first exhausts the remedy of pre-institution mediation, unless the suit contemplates urgent interim relief.
The Court referred to key Supreme Court rulings including:
- Patil Automation Pvt. Ltd. v. Rakheja Engineers Pvt. Ltd. (2022),
- Yamini Manohar v. T.K.D. Keerthi (2024), and
- Dhanbad Fuels Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (2025),
In these rulings, the Supreme Court stated that:
- The requirement under Section 12A is mandatory, not discretionary.
- Courts must examine the genuineness of urgency; urgency must not be a camouflage to avoid mediation.
- The suit must genuinely contemplate urgent interim relief at the time of filing.
In the eyes of the Court, the plaintiff failed to show any compelling urgency that justified avoiding mediation. The initial cease and desist notices were issued as far back as April 2023. The plaintiff waited until December 2024 to file the suit. The Court said this delay undermined the claim of urgency.
The Court stated that mere filing of an interim injunction application does not establish urgency. It must be supported by immediate and unavoidable necessity.
Findings
- The Court held that the suit did not satisfy the urgency exception under Section 12A(1).
- It ruled that pre-institution mediation was mandatory and had not been complied with.
- The Court rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Civil Procedure Code for being barred by law.
Relevant Paras
Para 19: “When a plaint is filed under the Commercial Court Act, with a prayer for urgent interim relief, the Commercial Court is duty bound to examine the nature and subject matter of the suit, the cause of action and the prayer for interim relief.”
Para 20: “Camouflage to bypass the statutory mandate of pre-litigation mediation should be checked when deception and falsity is apparent or established.”
Para 13: “As per the plaintiff, the cause of action dates back to April 2023. The delay of more than a year without sufficient explanation undermines the urgency claim.”
Case Citation
Zydus Wellness Products Ltd. v. Karnal Foods Pack Cluster Limited and Others, OMP No. 644 of 2025 in COMS No.1 of 2025, decided on 29 August 2025, Himachal Pradesh High Court, available at: http://indiankanoon.org/doc/72331240/ (Visited on 7 September 2025)
Disclaimer
This case blog is based on the author’s understanding of the judgment. Understandings and opinions of others may differ. An AI application was used to generate parts of this case blog. Views are personal.
