A No. 4559 of 2025 __________ Page1 of 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 02-03-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY A No. 4559 of 2025 IN C.S(COMM DIV) NO. 154 OF 2025 Gautham Nithyanandham, Proprietor of M/s.TVS Snuff Company, 171/70 Kodambakkam High Road, T.Nagar ,Chennai 600 017, Tamil Nadu. Also at Survey No.151/12 B.N.Kandigai Taluk, Aaladu post, Ponneri Taluk, Thiruvallur District 601 204. ..Applicant(s) Vs 1. M/s. MVS Gramany Sons (a registered Partnership firm-Reg No.365/2005) No. 70, Chinnambedu Sakkarachetty Kulam, GNT Road Puduvayal P.O 601206, Thiruvallur District, Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Partners, Mr. J Nandakumar and Mr. J. Vimalanathan 2. J. Nandakumar, Partner of M/s.M.V.S.Gramany & Sons,No 70, Chinnambedu Sakkarachetty Kulam, GNT Road, Puduvayal PO 601206, Thiruvallur District ,Tamil Nadu. 3. J. Vimalanathan No.70, Chinnambedu Sakkarachetty Kulam, GNT Road Puduvayal PO 601206, Thiruvallur District, Tamil Nadu. 4. J Nithyanandham 171/70 Kodambakkam High Road, T Nagar, Chennai 600 017 ..Respondent(s) https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A No. 4559 of 2025 __________ Page2 of 6 PRAYER: Judge’s summons filed under XIV Rule 8 of Original Side Rules read with Order VII Rule 11(a) & (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure praying to reject the plaint in C.S (Comm.Div) No.154 of 2025 for want of cause of action and as barred by law. For Applicant(s): Ms.Aanchal M.Nichani for M/s.Eshwar Sabapathy For Respondent(s): Mr.S.Shivathanu Mohan For M/s.Ramesh Umapathy for R1 & R3 Mr.S.Diwakar for R4 ORDER The present application is filed for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the plaintiffs did not resort to pre-institution mediation, as mandated by Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant / first defendant submits that the suit was instituted on or about November, 2024, after issuing lawyer’s notice dated 02.12.2023. Therefore, she submits that the suit does not contemplate urgent interim relief. She submits that the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Novenco Building and Industry A/S v. Zero Energy Engineering Solutions Private Ltd. and Others, MANU/SC/1449/2025, is distinguishable because the dispute therein related solely to infringement of trademark. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A No. 4559 of 2025 __________ Page3 of 6 3. These contentions are refuted by learned counsel for the plaintiffs on the ground that in an action for infringement and passing off each act of infringement or passing off, as the case may be, gives rise to a fresh cause of action. 4. In Novenco, at paragraphs 23 and 26, it was held as follows: “23. From the standpoint of the Appellant, each day of continuing infringement aggravates injury to its intellectual property and erodes its market standing. The urgency, therefore, is inherent in the nature of the wrong and does not lie in the age of the cause but in the persistence of the peril. The court cannot be unmindful of the fact that intellectual property disputes are not confined to the private realm. When imitation masquerades as innovation, it sows confusion among consumers, taints the market place and diminishes faith in the sanctity of the trade. The public interest, therefore, becomes the moral axis upon which the urgency turns. Therefore, the public interest element, need to prevent confusion in the market and to protect consumers from deception further imparts a colour of immediacy to the reliefs sought. …. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A No. 4559 of 2025 __________ Page4 of 6 26. For the reasons stated above, we hold that (i) In actions alleging continuing infringement of intellectual property rights, urgency must be assessed in the context of the ongoing injury and the public interest in preventing deception, (ii) Mere delay in institution of a suit by itself, does not negate urgency when the infringement is continuing.” 5. The present suit, as is evident from the plaint, is an action for both infringement and passing off. The first defendant does not deny that the marks continue to be applied to products sold by the first defendant. Therefore, the above principles are squarely applicable to this case. Consequently, this application is rejected. 02-03-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order (2/3) Neutral Citation: Yes/No KAL https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A No. 4559 of 2025 __________ Page5 of 6 SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J. KAL A No. 4559 of 2025 IN C.S(COMM DIV) NO. 154 OF 2025 02-03-2026 (2/2) https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A No. 4559 of 2025 __________ Page6 of 6 A No. 4559 of 2025 To 1. M s MVS Gramany Sons (a registered Partnership firm-Reg No.365/2005) No. 70, Chinnambedu Sakkarachetty Kulam, GNT Road Puduvayal P.O 601206, Thiruvallur District Tamil Nadu Rep by its Partners, Mr. J Nandakumar and Mr. J. Vimalanathan 2. J Nandakumar No 70 Chinnambedu Sakkarachetty Kulam GNT Road Puduvayal PO 601206 Thiruvallur District Tamil Nadu 3. J Vimalanathan No 70 Chinnambedu Sakkarachetty Kulam GNT Road Puduvayal PO 601206 Thiruvallur District Tamil Nadu 4. J Nithyanandham 171 70 Kodambakkam High Road T Nagar Chennai 600 017 C.S(COMM DIV) No. 154 of 2025 To 1. Gautham Nithyanandham and another 2. J Nithyanandham Partner of M/s. M.V.S. Gramany and Sons 171/70, Kodambakkam High Road, T.Nagar, Chennai 600017 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis