Case Title
Pankaj Plastic Industries Private Limited Vs Anita Anu
Case Number
APDT/16/2025 with IP-COM/28/2024 and IA NO: GA-COM/1/2025
Neutral Citation
2025:CALHC:APDT:16 (As per format of neutral citations, reflecting the year, Court, and appeal number)
Court
High Court at Calcutta, Commercial Appellate Division, Original Side
Bench
Hon’ble Justice Arijit Banerjee
Hon’ble Justice Rai Chattopadhyay
Date of Decision
24 September 2025
---
Facts
Pankaj Plastic Industries Private Limited, the appellant, is a company engaged in the manufacture and sale of plastic pipes, machines, and related tools. Over the years, it has registered and used several trademarks such as “Pankaj Flex,” “Pankaj Flexy,” and “Pankaj.” The company also secured copyright registration for its artistic packaging and trade dress.
The respondent, Anita Anu, started marketing and selling similar products under the trademark “Poly-Punkaj.” According to the appellant, this mark was deceptively similar to their registered marks and likely to cause confusion in the minds of consumers. The appellant also alleged that the respondent copied the artistic trade dress, including color combinations and packaging.
The respondent’s mark “Poly-Punkaj” was registered in December 2023. Soon after, the appellant filed for rectification in January 2024 to remove the respondent’s mark from the Trade Marks Register.
The appellant filed a commercial suit in September 2024 before the Calcutta High Court, seeking injunction against the respondent for infringement and passing off. Along with the suit, the appellant requested the court to dispense with pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, arguing that urgent relief was necessary and mediation would be futile.
Initially, the Single Judge granted this dispensation, accepted the suit, and even passed an ex parte ad interim injunction in October 2024 restraining the respondent from using the mark “Poly-Punkaj.” However, the respondent later filed an application seeking revocation of the leave granted under Section 12A. The Single Judge allowed this plea, dismissed the suit, and vacated the injunction in May 2025.
The present appeal arose from that dismissal.
---
Procedural Background
1. In September 2024, the Single Judge granted leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, Order II Rule 2 CPC, and dispensed with pre-suit mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act.
2. In October 2024, an ex parte ad interim injunction was granted restraining the respondent from using the impugned mark “Poly-Punkaj.”
3. In May 2025, on an application by the respondent, the Single Judge revoked the earlier leave under Section 12A, dismissed the suit, and vacated the injunction.
4. The appellant challenged this May 2025 order before the Division Bench.
---
The Core Dispute
The central dispute was not about trademark infringement itself, but about whether the appellant was entitled to bypass the mandatory requirement of pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
The appellant argued that because intellectual property matters involve urgent interim relief, mediation should not be required. The respondent, however, argued that since the appellant had knowledge of the alleged infringement as early as January 2024 but filed the suit only in September 2024, there was no urgency, and thus Section 12A could not be dispensed with.
---
Detailed Reasoning and Judicial Discussion
Appellant’s Arguments
The appellant, through Senior Counsel Debnath Ghosh, argued that:
Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act has an exception where urgent interim relief is required. Intellectual property cases, by their very nature, involve urgent intervention since even one infringing act causes irreparable harm. Reliance was placed on Kohinoor Seed Fields India Pvt. Ltd. v. Veda Seed Sciences Pvt. Ltd., MANU/TL/1081/2024 (DB).
Every act of infringement or passing off is a continuing wrong and gives rise to a fresh cause of action, as recognized by the Supreme Court in Bengal Waterproof Ltd. v. Bombay Waterproof Mfg. Co., (1997) 1 SCC 99.
Delay in filing the suit should not automatically mean that urgency is absent. Courts in several cases, such as Chemco Plastic Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Chemco Plast, 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 1607, granted urgent interim relief even after several years of delay.
Courts must take a holistic approach rather than looking only at time gaps, as emphasized in Unique Entrepreneurs and Finance Ltd. v. Really Agritech Pvt. Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine Cal 2426.
The appellant’s perception of urgency should be respected, and the court should not second-guess it.
Respondent’s Arguments
The respondent, represented by Advocate Soumya Ray Chowdhury, argued that:
Section 12A is mandatory, as held by the Supreme Court in Patil Automation Pvt. Ltd. v. Rakheja Engineers Pvt. Ltd., (2022) 10 SCC 1.
The appellant admittedly became aware of the respondent’s registration in January 2024 but filed the suit only in September 2024, a gap of nine months. This delay itself showed that there was no real urgency.
In SRMB Srijan Pvt. Ltd. v. B.S. Sponge Pvt. Ltd., MANU/WB/1666/2023, the Calcutta High Court had refused dispensation of Section 12A where plaintiffs delayed in filing. That decision was later upheld by a Division Bench.
The appellant’s argument that mediation would be futile cannot justify bypassing Section 12A. Otherwise, every plaintiff could escape mediation by merely alleging futility.
Courts cannot go beyond the pleadings. The plaint did not clearly explain why urgent relief was required after such delay.
Division Bench’s Analysis
The Division Bench carefully analyzed both positions. It emphasized that:
Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act is a statutory mandate, and its purpose is to encourage mediation and reduce unnecessary litigation burdens.
Exceptions for urgent relief must be applied strictly. Otherwise, the provision would become meaningless. Reliance was placed on Union of India v. Deoki Nandan Aggarwal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 323 for the principle that courts cannot interpret statutes in a way that makes provisions nugatory.
The Supreme Court in Yamini Manohar v. T.K.D. Keerthi, (2024) 5 SCC 815 had warned that urgency cannot be artificially created to bypass Section 12A.
While it is true that infringement gives recurring cause of action, this cannot automatically mean that urgency exists. Plaintiffs must act with diligence.
In this case, the appellant waited nine months after acquiring knowledge. The plaint gave no proper explanation for this delay, except claiming that mediation would be an idle formality. The court held that this argument cannot be accepted because it would allow every plaintiff to sidestep Section 12A.
The court observed that the appellant’s conduct showed no real urgency, and thus the Single Judge was correct in revoking the earlier dispensation.
---
Final Decision
The Division Bench dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of the Single Judge. It held that:
1. The dispensation under Section 12A was wrongly granted and rightly revoked.
2. The suit stood dismissed, not on merits, but only because of non-compliance with Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
3. The appellant is free to file a fresh suit after following the statutory requirement of pre-institution mediation.
No order as to costs was passed. The court also clarified that the appellant may apply for refund of court fees if it decides to file a fresh suit.
---
Suggested Titles for Publication
1. Pre-Suit Mediation under Section 12A: Calcutta High Court Reinforces the Mandate in Pankaj Plastic v. Anita Anu
2. Trademark Disputes and Section 12A: When Delay Defeats Urgency
3. Urgency and Mediation: A Study of Calcutta High Court’s Ruling in Pankaj Plastic v. Anita Anu
4. Dispensation of Section 12A in IP Disputes: Limits and Judicial Scrutiny
5. Balancing Urgency with Statutory Mandate: Lessons from Pankaj Plastic Industries v. Anita Anu
---
Disclaimer
The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
