Introduction:
The requirement of pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, stands as a pivotal procedural mechanism designed to encourage out-of-court settlements and reduce judicial backlog. However, statutory law explicitly provides an exception to this mandatory process where a suit contemplates urgent interim relief. The intersection of this procedural mandate with intellectual property litigation, where rights are continuously infringed, gives rise to complex legal questions regarding what constitutes genuine urgency. This decision addresses an application seeking the rejection of a commercial suit for alleged non-compliance with pre-institution mediation requirements in the context of an ongoing trademark infringement dispute.
Factual and Procedural Background:
The applicant in the present proceeding is M/s Mangal Marketing, a partnership firm through its partner, while the respondent is M/s Mangal and Mangal, a registered partnership firm through its managing partner. The respondent instituted a commercial suit, numbered C.S.(COMM.DIV.) No. 52 of 2026, before the High Court of Judicature at Madras, alleging continuous infringement of its registered trademark and copyright by the applicant.
Prior to filing the suit, formal legal notices were exchanged between the parties. The respondent issued a cease and desist notice on October 17, 2025, to which the applicant sent a reply on October 31, 2025. The respondent followed up with a rejoinder on November 27, 2025, and an interim response was issued by the applicant on December 8, 2025. Subsequently, the respondent e-filed the commercial suit on January 12, 2026, and completed physical filing on February 9, 2026, seeking protective reliefs for its trademark alongside applications for interim injunctions.
In response to the suit, the applicant filed Application No. 1826 of 2026 under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking rejection of the plaint. The applicant contended that the suit was barred under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, as the respondent had failed to exhaust the mandatory pre-institution mediation process prior to approaching the court.
Dispute Before the Court:
The fundamental legal dispute before the Court centered on whether the commercial suit was liable to be rejected in limine under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure for failing to undergo pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
The applicant submitted that it had been carrying on business under the subject trade name since the year 1991. The applicant highlighted that the respondent was aware of its activities at least as early as October 2025 when the cease and desist notice was issued, yet waited until February 2026 to physically institute the suit. The applicant argued that this unexplained delay demonstrated a lack of genuine urgency. Furthermore, the applicant asserted that because no ex-parte interim injunction had been granted by the court, the prayer for interim relief was merely a camouflage or a ruse to bypass the mandatory mediation mechanism mandated by statute.
Conversely, the respondent contended that as a registered trademark holder, it was seeking to protect its statutory intellectual property rights against continuous infringement. The respondent emphasized that intellectual property infringement creates an ongoing, daily injury that confuses the public and dilutes goodwill. Therefore, mere passage of time during notice exchanges does not negate the inherent urgency of seeking interim protection against a continuing wrong. The respondent maintained that the suit contained explicit pleadings justifying the need for urgent interim relief, thereby validly exempting it from Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
Reasoning and Analysis of the Court:
The Court undertook a careful evaluation of the statutory framework under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, alongside Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It examined the chronology of pre-suit communications, noting the exchange of notices between October 2025 and December 2025, followed swiftly by e-filing in January 2026 and physical filing in February 2026.
Regarding the applicant's defense of long-standing business usage since 1991, the Court observed that such factual assertions could only be tested and substantiated during a full trial. For the purpose of assessing compliance with Section 12A, the court must primarily look at the nature of the right asserted and the relief claimed in the suit.
In analyzing judicial precedents, the Court considered the decision relied upon by the applicant, Yamini Manohar v. T.K.D. Keerthi, reported in (2024) 5 SCC 815. That precedent established that where interim reliefs are artificially created or camouflaged merely to bypass pre-institution mediation, the court lacks discretion to grant an exemption, and the plaint may be rejected. However, the Court distinguished the general application of this rule in matters involving ongoing intellectual property violations.
The Court relied upon the principles articulated by the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 2753 of 2025, decided on October 27, 2025. The Supreme Court held that infringement of an intellectual property right constitutes a continuing wrong that generates an ongoing injury. In such cases, the assessment of injury and urgency must be viewed through the lens of continuous harm and potential public deception. The Court affirmed that where a suit is filed to restrain continuous trademark infringement, the ongoing nature of the injury satisfies the statutory requirement of contemplating urgent interim relief, thereby legitimately exempting the plaintiff from mandatory pre-institution mediation. The Court concluded that the respondent's suit was not a camouflage to avoid mediation, as the need to protect registered trademarks from ongoing harm inherent in commercial distribution forms a valid ground for urgent judicial intervention.
Final Decision of the Court:
The Court found no merit in the application filed by the applicant under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Consequently, Application No. 1826 of 2026 in C.S.(COMM.DIV.) No. 52 of 2026 was formally dismissed. The Court directed that there shall be no order as to costs, leaving the commercial suit to proceed in accordance with law.
Point of Law Settled:
This decision reaffirms that in commercial suits involving intellectual property rights, ongoing infringement constitutes a continuing cause of action and a continuous injury. Where a plaintiff seeks interim relief to stop continuous trademark or copyright infringement, the suit validly falls within the statutory exception under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The mere exchange of pre-suit notices or a brief passage of time prior to filing does not negate the urgency of interim relief, nor does it convert an urgent intellectual property action into a procedural attempt to bypass pre-institution mediation.
Case Details
Title of the Case: Mangal Marketing Vs Mangal and Mangal
Date of Judgment: July 31, 2026
Case Number: Application No. 1826 of 2026 in C.S.(COMM.DIV.) No. 52 of 2026
Neutral Citation: Not Provided in Judgment Copy
Name of Court: High Court of Judicature at Madras
Name of Hon'ble Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. Kumaresh Babu
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
Disclaimer: Readers are advised not to treat this as a substitute for legal advice as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation .
Headnote of the Judgment:
In M/s Mangal Marketing v. M/s Mangal and Mangal, Application No. 1826 of 2026 in C.S.(COMM.DIV.) No. 52 of 2026, the High Court of Judicature at Madras considered an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure to reject a commercial suit for non-compliance with Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The applicant argued that delay after issuing a cease and desist notice negated urgency. The Court held that continuous trademark infringement creates an ongoing injury, justifying urgent interim relief and exempting the suit from pre-institution mediation. The application was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Suggested SEO Tags:
Madras High Court, Section 12A Commercial Courts Act, Order VII Rule 11 CPC, Trademark Infringement, Pre-Institution Mediation, Rejection of Plaint, Continuous Cause of Action, Intellectual Property Litigation, Urgent Interim Relief, Commercial Law India, AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman, IPAdjutor
Suggested SEO Titles:
- Madras High Court Clarifies Section 12A Exemption in Continuous Trademark Infringement Suits
- Pre-Institution Mediation and Intellectual Property: Insights from M/s Mangal Marketing v. M/s Mangal and Mangal
- Rejection of Plaint Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC in Commercial Suits: Madras High Court Decision
- Does Delay in Filing Suit Negate Urgency Under Section 12A Commercial Courts Act?
- Continuous Injury in Trademark Suits Exempts Pre-Institution Mediation, Rules Madras High Court
- M/s Mangal Marketing v. M/s Mangal and Mangal: Legal Analysis of Section 12A Compliance
- Intellectual Property Rights and Mandatory Mediation: The Scope of Urgent Interim Relief
- Madras High Court Dismisses Order VII Rule 11 Application in Trademark Infringement Case
- Understanding Section 12A Exceptions in Ongoing Commercial Patent and Trademark Disputes
- Mandatory Pre-Institution Mediation vs Urgent Interim Injunctions in Intellectual Property Law
Title of the Case is M/s Mangal Marketing v. M/s Mangal and Mangal, Date of Judgment is July 31, 2026, Case Number is Application No. 1826 of 2026 in C.S.(COMM.DIV.) No. 52 of 2026, Neutral Citation is Not Provided in Judgment Copy, Name of Court is High Court of Judicature at Madras, and Name of Hon'ble Judge is Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. Kumaresh Babu.
