- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29195 WP No. 17926 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 17926 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: KARNATAKA AUTOMATS PRIVATE LIMITED HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.143F, AKS BUILDING, SY.NO.70, 180, 181 BOMMASANDRA INDUSTRIAL AREA, HEBBAGODI VILLAGE, BENGALURU 560 099, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, MR.G. SATYA KUMAR, S/O. D.G. NAIDU, AGED 74 YEARS. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. CYRIL PRASAD PAIS, ADVOCATE) AND: M/S. ATTICA PRODUCTS PVT. LTD., HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 11/4, GROUND FLOOR, SUVARNA BHAVAN, QUEEN'S ROAD, BENGALURU 560 052 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, MRS. URMILA SATYANARAYAN, AND ALSO AT DOOR NO.68, KIADB INDUSTRIAL AREA, VASANTHAPURA, PHASE-II, KORA HOBLI, Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29195 WP No. 17926 of 2026 TUMKUR-572 128 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, MRS. URMILA SATYANARAYAN. …RESPONDENT THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER ON I.A. NO. 2/2026 DATED 06.06.2026 PASSED BY THE VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, COMMERCIAL COURT DIVISION, TUMAKURU IN COMMERCIAL O.S.NO.69/2026, WHICH IS AT ANNEXURE-A COPY OF I.A. WHICH IS AT ANNEXURE-G CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, COMMERCIAL COURT DIVISION, TUMAKURU TO REGISTER THE SUIT AND CONSIDER THE APPLICATION NO. 2/2026 FOR INTERIM RELIEF AND THEREAFTER DIRECT THE LEARNED COMMERCIAL COURT JUDGE TO PROCEED WITH THE SUIT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER Aggrieved by the order passed in I.A.No.2/2026 in Com.O.S.No.69/2026 dated 06.06.2026 by the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Commercial Court Division, Tumakuru, the petitioner/plaintiff is before this Court. 2. The petitioner herein who is the plaintiff had filed the suit seeking a Judgment and Decree calling upon the defendant to vacate and handover the peaceful possession of the suit - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29195 WP No. 17926 of 2026 schedule property, to direct the defendant to repair the suit schedule property and handover the same in good, usable condition and also seeking direction to the defendant to pay the arrears of rent from October 2025 till December 2025 along with interest and also other reliefs were sought. In the said suit, the plaintiff had filed I.A.No.2 under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act read with Section 151 of CPC, seeking to dispense with the initiation of pre-litigation mediation as per the Commercial Courts Act. It is stated that the defendant is attempting to sublease the schedule premises though there is no provision under the agreement to sublet the property. If the said premises is sublet, it will complicate the issue and cause lot of hardship to the plaintiff. As such, the plaintiff sought for dispensation of initiation of pre-litigation mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act. That application came to be dismissed by order impugned. 3. While dismissing the application, the trial Court had observed that the provision can be bypassed if the plaintiff has made out valid urgent exemption. On reading of the averments of the plaint and the application, the plaintiff has not made out - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29195 WP No. 17926 of 2026 any valid grounds for dispensation of the mandatory provision. Except making some bald allegation of subleasing the suit property, the plaintiff has not proved the urgency. Accordingly, the application was dismissed. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/plaintiff submits that the petitioner has categorically mentioned that the respondents/defendants are going to sublease the property. When the suit is filed for eviction, if third party rights are created and as the plaintiff has reliably learnt about the same, the plaintiff has come up with the I.A. seeking dispensation. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the trial Court had failed to consider the settled possession in this regard. Learned counsel had relied on the judgment of the Madras High Court in case of Aarthi Scans Private Limited Vs. Konica Minolta Business Solutions India Private Limited1. He had relied on paragraph Nos.14 and 17 which reads thus: "14. A close scanning of the above decisions would make it clear that whenever an urgent interim prayer is sought for by the plaintiff and the suit is filed without exhausting the Pre-Institution Mediation procedure, the Court has to see whether there is a real contemplation of urgent relief in the stand point of view of the plaintiff based on the subject matter of the suit and cause of 1 2026 SCC OnLine Mad 2440 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29195 WP No. 17926 of 2026 action. The Court is not concerned with the merits of the urgent relief sought for but the relief sought for must be plausibly urgent from the stand point of view of the plaintiff. 17. As mentioned earlier, the plaintiff in its pleading clearly explained the difficulties faced by it due to the continuous supply of the printers, storing of the printers supplied by the defendant in the commercial space of the plaintiff's premises and the continuous raising of the invoices by the respondent, therefore, we cannot say that the interim relief sought for by the plaintiff is a camouflage to bypass the mandatory Pre-Institution Mediation procedure contemplated under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The urgent reliefs sought for by the plaintiff appear to be real in the stand point of view of the plaintiff based on its averment in its pleadings. Therefore, the Trial Court committed an error in returning the plaint with direction to undergo mandatory Pre-Institution Mediation and settlement procedure. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the Trial Court is set aside and the Principal Commercial Court, Egmore, Chennai is directed to number the plaint, if it is otherwise in order and proceed with suit in accordance with law." 5. Learned counsel had also relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in case of Novenco Building and Industry A/S Vs. Xero Energy Engineerig Solutions Private Ltd. and Another2. He had relied on paragraph Nos.20, 21, 23 and 24 which reads thus: "20. The legal test distilled from the aforesaid decisions for the purposes of rejection of the plaint and for adjudication of interim relief can be culled out as follows: (i) Section 12A mandatorily requires pre-institution mediation for commercial suits, non-compliance of 2 2025 LiveLaw SC 1027 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29195 WP No. 17926 of 2026 which would ordinarily render the plaint institutionally defective. (ii) A plaintiff can be exempted from the requirement of Section 12A only when the plaint and the documents attached with it clearly show a real need for urgent interim intervention. A wholesome reading of the plaint and the material annexed to the plaint ought to disclose the need for urgent relief. (iii) The court must look at the plaint, pleadings and supporting documents to decide whether urgent interim relief is genuinely contemplated. The court may also look for immediacy of the peril, irreparable harm, risk of losing rights/assets, statutory timelines, perishable subject-matter, or where delay would render eventual relief ineffective. (iv) A proforma or anticipatory prayer for urgent relief used as a device to skip mediation will be ignored and the court can require the parties to comply with Section 12A of the Act. (v) The court is not concerned with the merits of the urgent relief, but if the relief sought seems to be plausibly urgent from the standpoint of the plaintiff the court can dispense with the requirement under Section 12A of the Act. ANALYSIS 21. Thus, the question whether a suit ‘contemplates any urgent interim relief’ needs to be examined on the touchstone of the aforementioned criteria. The issue which arises for consideration in this appeal is whether a suit alleging continuing infringement of patent and design rights, accompanied by a prayer for interim injunction, can be said to contemplate urgent relief within the meaning of Section 12A of the Act, notwithstanding certain delay in its institution. 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 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29195 WP No. 17926 of 2026 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. 24. The appellant’s prayer for injunction cannot be characterised as mere camouflage to evade mediation. It is a real grievance founded on the continuing nature of infringement and irreparable prejudice likely to be caused by the delay. The court must look beyond time lag and evaluate the substance of the plea for interim protection. The insistence of pre-institution mediation in a situation of ongoing infringement, in effect, would render the plaintiff remediless allowing the infringer to continue to profit under the protection of procedural formality. Section 12A of the Act was not intended to achieve such kind of anomalous result." 6. Relying on this, it is submitted that the trial Court ought to have considered the urgency and as held by the Apex Court, the trial Court is not concerned with the merits of the urgent relief and it has to only see the relief sought seems to be plausibly urgent from the standpoint of the plaintiff and the trial Court ought to have dispensed with the requirement under Section 12A of the Act. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the entire material on record. The Apex Court in Novenco Building and Industry’s case referred supra had discussed in detail about the scope of Section 12A of the Act and when the initiation of pre-institution mediation can be dispensed with. The Apex Court had also considered earlier - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29195 WP No. 17926 of 2026 precedents in Automation Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rakheja Engineers Pvt. Ltd.3 and in case of Yamini Manohar Vs. T.K.D. Keerthi4 and Dhanbad Fuels (P) Ltd. Vs. UOI5, where the Apex Court had observed that the plaintiff can be exempted from the requirement of Section 12A of the Act only when the plaint and the documents attached with it clearly show a real need for urgent interim intervention. It is also observed that the Court is not concerned with the merits of the urgent relief, but if the relief sought seems to be plausibly urgent from the standpoint of the plaintiff, the Court can dispense with the requirement under Section 12A of the Act. 8. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the plaintiff has pleaded about the urgency where the defendant is going to enter into a sublease and once the sublease is entered, it would cause hardship to the plaintiff. Considering the said urgency, the trial Court ought to have considered the application. In the considered opinion of this Court, the plaintiff has made out the case for dispensation of initiation of pre-litigation mediation as 3 (2022) 10 SCC 1 4 (2024) 5 SCC 815 5 (2025) SCC Online SC 1129 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29195 WP No. 17926 of 2026 contemplated under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act. Hence, this Court is passing the following order: ORDER i. The order passed in I.A.No.2/2026 in Com.O.S.No.69/2026 dated 06.06.2026 by the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Commercial Court Division, Tumakuru, is set aside. Consequently IA No.2/26 is allowed. ii. The trial Court shall consider the case of the petitioner on the merits of the matter. iii. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. iv. All I.As. in this petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE MEG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 55