- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010686752025 NC: 2026:KHC:53246-DB COMAP No. 556 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO. 556 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. M/S V.S PLASTICS A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM UNDER THE INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932 REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNERS, GANPATLAL, VIJAY KUMAR, SUMITRA DEVI, AND LALIT KUMAR 2. GANPATLAL, SON OF RANMAL, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS PARTNER AT M/S. VS PLASTICS, 3. VIJAY KUMAR, SON OF RANMAL, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS PARTNER AT M/S. VS PLASTICS, 4. SUMITRA DEVI, WIFE OF LATE RAJKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS PARTNER AT M/S VS PLASTICS 5. LALITH KUMAR SON OF RANMAL, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS PARTNER AT M/S. VS PLASTICS, Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010686752025 NC: 2026:KHC:53246-DB COMAP No. 556 of 2025 APPELLANT NOS. 1-5 HAVING ITS OFFICE AT, 117/1, PETECHANNAPPA INDL ESTATE, KAMAKSHIPALYA, MAGADI MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU (BANGALORE) URBAN, KARNATAKA - 560 079. APPELLANT NOS. 1-4 BEING REPRESENTED BY THEIR SPECIFIC POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, LALITH KUMAR (APPELLANT NO. 5). …APPELLANTS (BY SMT. SUMEDHA SRINATH FOR SMT. SANJAY H SETHIYA.,ADVOCATE) AND: RAHUL JAIN PROPRIETOR OF MAXPET, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT SY NO 47, 48 AND 49, PLOT NO 666, YALLADADLU VILLAGE, VASANTHANARASAPURA INDUSTRIAL AREA 2ND PHASE, VASANTHANARASAPURA INDUSTRIAL AREA, TUMAKURU, KARNATAKA - 572 128 ALSO AT: GROUND FLOOR, PLOT NO.69, KHATA NO.263, MACHOHALLI GATE, MAGADI ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 091. ALSO, AT MAXPET, MANUFACTURING PLANT, KIADB IND. AREA, PLOT NO.666, - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010686752025 NC: 2026:KHC:53246-DB COMAP No. 556 of 2025 VASANTHANARASAPURA, 2ND PHASE, SUB LAYOUT, TUMKURU, KARNATAKA, PIN CODE-572 138. …RESPONDENT THIS COMMERCIAL APPEAL / COMAP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 13(1A) OF THE COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT, 2015 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 25.09.2025 IN COM.O.S.NO.1349/2025 PASSED BY THE HONBLE LXXXIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH-90), BENGALURU, (ANNEXURE-A) AND CONSEQUENTLY PERMIT THE APPELLANTS TO CONTEST COM OS NO.1349/2025, EXEMPTING THE APPELLANTS FROM PRE- LITIGATION MEDIATION AND SETTLEMENT PROCEEDINGS. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH) Heard Smt. Sumedha Srinath, learned counsel appearing for Sri. Sanjay H Sethiya, learned counsel for appellants. 2. The present Commercial Court Appeal under Section 13 (1-A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 has been filed impugning the order dated 25.09.2025 in Com. OS - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010686752025 NC: 2026:KHC:53246-DB COMAP No. 556 of 2025 No.1349/2025. The Commercial Court has directed the plaintiff to comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 3. As per the averments in the plaint, the plaintiff has come to know about the infringement of his trademark allegedly by the defendant in the month of March, 2025 and a legal notice dated 18.03.2025 was issued to the defendant/respondent seeking the defendant/respondent to cease and desist from using the trademark "MAXPET", "MYMAX" and "MAXXON", which are according to the plaintiff, visually and phonetically similar to the plaintiff's/appellants' trademark "MAX". Thus, according to the plaintiff/appellant itself, the plaintiff has come to know about the infringement of his trademark and passing of the defendant's goods as the goods of the plaintiff's in the month of March, 2025. But the suit came to be filed on 24.09.2025 i.e., almost after 7 months. 4. The trial Court has considered these facts and has come to the conclusion that the suit of the plaintiff could not come within the exception provided under Section 12A of the - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010686752025 NC: 2026:KHC:53246-DB COMAP No. 556 of 2025 Commercial Courts Act. Therefore, Pre-Institution Mediation as mandated under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act should be resorted to before proceeding further with the suit. Accordingly, rejected the applications filed by the plaintiff. 5. We do not find that the trial Court order requires an interference by this Court in the given facts and circumstances of the case where the plaintiff has come to know about the infringement and passing of the defendant's goods as plaintiff's goods in the month of March, 2025 and the suit came to be filed only on 24.09.2025 after lapse of almost 7 months. 6. We therefore dismiss this appeal as the plaintiff's case is not covered by one of the exceptions as provided under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act. Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/- (H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN) JUDGE RU, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21