A single-judge bench of the Madras High Court comprising of Justice M. Sundar reiterated a Supreme Court judgment and held that Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act was a mandatory pre-suit step and that any suit which does not follow this process would be suo motu rejected. The court emphasized on the fact that Section 12A is in the nature of a jurisdictional fact and that this current suit was hit with non-compliance of the provision, thus making the plaintiffs liable for suo motu rejection.
Brief Facts:
The Plaintiff filed a suit claiming relief alleging infringement of the plaintiffs’ registered trademarks. The plaintiff directly filed the plaint without issuing any pre-suit notice, or any kind of notice under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act.
Contentions of the Plaintiff:
The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the address of the first defendant was not available, hence making the option of resorting to Section 12A of CCA is unavailable in the present case. The counsel also argued that infringement is not solely a civil wrong but also has penal consequences, and hence relief should be awarded accordingly. Further, the defendant was selling food of a lesser quality that could harm naïve customers' health and there had been a dilution of trademarks. The plaintiff requested an injunction, using interim orders issued by the court in previous cases as support.
Contentions of the Defendant:
The learned counsel for defendant argued that the business by the first defendant is being carried out at the given address. The counsel also submitted that the Commercial Courts (Pre-Institution Mediation and Settlement) Rules, 2018 provide for a time frame for mediation and if the noticee does not respond, it will be construed as a case of non-starter qua pre-institution mediation.
Observations of the Court:
The court observed that the plaintiff did not meet the requirements for urgent interim relief as the plaintiff had just filed the lawsuit one and a half months after learning of the infringement, according to the court, thus he was unable to make an urgent claim. The plaintiffs also had failed to establish that there was a legal wrong or harm that was sufficiently imminent that pre-institution mediation was not an option due to an actual or anticipated wrong or injury.
The court emphasized on the fact that Section 12A is in the nature of a jurisdictional fact and that this current suit was hit with non-compliance of the provision, thus making the plaintiffs liable for suo motu rejection. Through referring to numerous landmark judgments, the court also remarked that the non-compliance with Section 12A could not be saved by the fact that the alleged infringement also had penal consequences, and that the Supreme Court has held it mandatory to follow Section 12A.
Decision of the Court:
The Court rejected all seven suits with the liberty to re-file the suit after the pre-suit mediation had been followed.
Case Title: Padma Singh Issac & Ors. vs Karaikudi Achi Mess & Anr.
Coram: Honourable Justice M. Sundar
Case No.:
C.S. (Comm. Div.) No.192 of 2022 & O.A. Nos. 573&574 of 2022 and A.Nos.3794, 3795 and 4989 of 2022 in C.S. (Comm. Div.) No. 192 of 2022
C.S. (Comm. Div.) No. 193 of 2022 & O.A.Nos.575 & 576 of 2022 and A.Nos.3796, 3797 and 4990 of 2022 in C.S. (Comm. Div.) No. 193 of 2022
C.S. (Comm. Div.) No. 194 of 2022 & O.A.Nos.577 & 578 of 2022 and A.Nos.3806,3807 and 5252 of 2022 in C.S. (Comm. Div.) No. 194 of 2022
C.S. (Comm. Div.) No. 195 of 2022 & O.A.Nos.579 to 581 of 2022 and A.Nos.3822 and 4991 of 2022 in C.S. (Comm. Div.) No. 195 of 2022
C.S. (Comm. Div.) No. 177 of 2022 & O.A.Nos.537 to 539 of 2022 and A.Nos.3756 and 5033 of 2022 in C.S. (Comm. Div.) No. 177 of 2022
C.S. (Comm. Div.) No. 183 of 2022 & O.A.Nos.551 to 553 of 2022 and A.Nos.3771 and 4931 of 2022 in C.S. (Comm. Div.) No. 183 of 2022
C.S. (Comm. Div.) No. 186 of 2022 & O.A.Nos.559 & 560 of 2022 and A.Nos.3785,3786 and 4987 of 2022 in C.S. (Comm. Div.) No. 186 of 2022
Advocate for the Plaintiff: Mr. P.S. Raman, Senior Counsel for Ms. T. Hemalatha
Advocate for the Respondent:
Mr. S. Anand of M/s. Leela & Co for D2 (in C.S (Comm.Div.) No.192 of 2022)
Mr. R. S. Diwaagar of M/s. Vivrti Law (Law Firm) for D2
Mr. Allwin Godwin & Ms. Akhila J for D3 (in C.S (Comm.Div.) No.193 of 2022)
Mr. R. S. Diwaagar of M/s. Vivrti Law (Law Firm) for D2
Mr. P. Giridharan along with Mr. H. Siddarth for D6
Mr. Allwin Godwin along with Ms. Akhila J for D5 (in C.S (Comm.Div.) No.194 of 2022)
Mr. A. Suresh Sakthi Murugan for D1
Mr. R. S. Diwaagar of M/s. Vivrti Law (Law Firm) for D2 (in C.S (Comm.Div.) No.195 of 2022)
Mr. R. S. Diwaagar of M/s. Vivrti Law (Law Firm) for D2 (in C.S (Comm.Div.) No.177 of 2022)
Read Judgment ;
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
0 Comments