- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28203 WP No. 22189 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 22189 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: M/S. INDO AMERICAN HYBRID SEEDS INDIA (PVT) LTD., REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICER SY NO. 13/4 14, 7TH KM, BANASHANKARI LINK ROAD, CHENNASANDRA, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR POST - 560 098, BANGALORE, REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED SINGNATORY. SRI. M.N. PRADEEP …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VEERESH M. UPPIN, ADVOCATE) AND: M/S. INDO AMERICAN NURSERY PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO. 87/2, NEAR DODDAGATTIGANABBE VILLAGE, BESIDE NH 207, KASABA HOBLI, HOSAKOTE, BANGALORE - 562 114. REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI SHIVA PRASAD VENKATARAMANAPPA. …RESPONDENT THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28203 WP No. 22189 of 2025 DTD. 18.06.2025 IN COM.O.S.NO. 133/2025 PASSED BY THE XI ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE RURAL (ANNX-M) AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order dated 18.06.2025 passed in Commercial O.S.No.133/2025. The petitioner is the plaintiff, institutes a suit against the defendant on account of certain trademark infringement. 2. Heard Shri Veeresh M. Uppin, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that before the concerned Court an application is also filed for grant of temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('the CPC' for short), as the relief that was claimed, was urgent in nature. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28203 WP No. 22189 of 2025 The concerned Court by the impugned order has kept the suit in abeyance and has observed that it would direct the parties to comply with the rigor of Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 ('the Act' for short), which would mean that they are to be mandatory hold pre-institution mediation. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that there is an urgent need of grant of an interim order and would seek place reliance upon the judgment in the case of M/S DHANBAD FUELS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA & Ors.1 The Apex Court in the said judgment, while recognizing the imperativeness of Section 12A of the Act also observes that if there is urgent need for an interim order to be granted, the Commercial Court cannot show the doors to the suit and observes that only on completion of pre-institution mediation, the interim order also would be considered. 5. The Apex Court in the case of M/S DHANBAD FUELS PRIVATE LIMITED (supra) has held as follows: 1 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1129 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28203 WP No. 22189 of 2025 "42. Further, it is also pertinent to note that Section 12A of the 2015 Act does not contemplate leave of the court for filing a suit which contemplates an urgent interim relief, as is clear from the language and words used in the provision. The provision also does not necessarily require an application seeking exemption if a suit is being filed without pre-institution mediation. An application seeking waiver on account of urgent interim relief setting out grounds and reasons may allay a challenge and assist the court, but in the absence of any statutory mandate or rules made by the Central Government, an application per se is not a condition under Section 12A of the 2015 Act. Pleadings on record and oral submissions would be sufficient in ordinary course. 43. This Court in Yamini Manohar v. T.K.D. Keerthi reported in (2024) 5 SCC 815 while interpreting the import of the expression “a suit which does not contemplate any urgent interim relief” used in Section 12A of the 2015 Act observed that the word “contemplate” connotes to deliberate and consider. Further, the legal position that the plaint can be rejected and not entertained reflects application of mind by the court as regards the requirement of “urgent interim relief”. The Court further observed that the prayer of urgent interim relief should not act as a disguise to get over the bar contemplated under Section 12A. However, at the same time, the Court observed that the mere non- grant of the interim relief at the ad-interim stage, when the plaint is taken up for admission and examination would not justify the rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, as interim relief is at times also granted after issuance of notice. Further, even if after the conclusion of arguments on the aspect of interim relief, the same is denied on merits, that would not by itself justify the rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11. The relevant observations from the said decision are reproduced hereinbelow: “10. We are of the opinion that when a plaint is filed under the CC Act, with a prayer for an urgent interim relief, the commercial court should examine the nature and the subject-matter of the suit, the cause of action, and the prayer for interim relief. The prayer for - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28203 WP No. 22189 of 2025 urgent interim relief should not be a disguise or mask to wriggle out of and get over Section 12-A of the CC Act. The facts and circumstances of the case have to be considered holistically from the standpoint of the plaintiff. Non-grant of interim relief at the ad interim stage, when the plaint is taken up for registration/admission and examination, will not justify dismissal of the commercial suit under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code; at times, interim relief is granted after issuance of notice. Nor can the suit be dismissed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code, because the interim relief, post the arguments, is denied on merits and on examination of the three principles, namely : (i) prima facie case, (ii) irreparable harm and injury, and (iii) balance of convenience. The fact that the court issued notice and/or granted interim stay may indicate that the court is inclined to entertain the plaint. 11. Having stated so, it is difficult to agree with the proposition that the plaintiff has the absolute choice and right to paralyse Section 12-A of the CC Act by making a prayer for urgent interim relief. Camouflage and guise to bypass the statutory mandate of pre- litigation mediation should be checked when deception and falsity is apparent or established. The proposition that the commercial courts do have a role, albeit a limited one, should be accepted, otherwise it would be up to the plaintiff alone to decide whether to resort to the procedure under Section 12-A of the CC Act. An “absolute and unfettered right” approach is not justified if the pre-institution mediation under Section 12-A of the CC Act is mandatory, as held by this Court in Patil Automation [Patil Automation (P) Ltd. v. Rakheja Engineers (P) Ltd., (2022) 10 SCC 1 : (2023) 1 SCC (Civ) 545]. 12. The words “contemplate any urgent interim relief” in Section 12-A(1) of the CC Act, with reference to the suit, should be read as conferring power on the court to be satisfied. They suggest that the suit must “contemplate”, which means the plaint, documents and facts should show and indicate the need for an urgent interim relief. This is the precise and limited exercise that the commercial courts will undertake, the contours of which have been explained in the earlier paragraph(s). - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28203 WP No. 22189 of 2025 This will be sufficient to keep in check and ensure that the legislative object/intent behind the enactment of Section 12-A of the CC Act is not defeated.” (Emphasis supplied) 44. Thus, it becomes clear from a perusal of the aforesaid decision that the test under Section 12A is not whether the prayer for the urgent interim relief actually comes to be allowed or not, but whether on an examination of the nature and the subject-matter of the suit and the cause of action, the prayer of urgent interim relief by the plaintiff could be said to be contemplable when the matter is seen from the standpoint of the plaintiff. Further, what is also to be kept in mind by the courts is that the urgent interim relief must not be merely an unfounded excuse by the plaintiff to bypass the mandatory requirement of Section 12A of the 2015 Act. 45. In the case at hand indisputably, no urgent interim relief was prayed for at the time of the institution of the suit by the Union." In the light of the judgment of the Apex Court, it is not that the petitioner would get an interim order at the hands of this Court, but a direction to the concerned Court to consider the application filed by the petitioner under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC would examine whether the urgent need that he is wanting to project before this Court and pass orders, in accordance with law. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28203 WP No. 22189 of 2025 (ii) The ordered 18.06.2025 in Commercial O.S.No.133/2025 stands quashed. (iii) The matter is remitted back to the hands of the concerned Court to consider the application of the petitioner filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC and pass necessary orders, within two weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. Ordered accordingly. SD/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE JY List No.: 1 Sl No.: 53 CT:BHK