The case before the Himachal Pradesh High Court centered on a dispute under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, specifically revolving around the mandatory pre-institution mediation requirement under Section 12A. The plaintiff, Zydus Wellness Products Ltd., approached the court seeking injunctions and damages against alleged trademark infringement of its well-known products Glucon-D and Glucon-C.
The defendants filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC, contending that the plaint was liable to be rejected as it was filed without resorting to pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Act, and that the claim of “urgent interim relief” was a camouflage to bypass the statutory mandate.
Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, after examining the facts, pleadings, and relevant Supreme Court precedents, delivered a significant judgment clarifying the contours of urgent interim relief as an exception to Section 12A.
Case Title: Zydus Wellness Products Ltd. v. Karnal Foods Pack Cluster Ltd. & Ors.
Court: High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla
Citation: 2025:HHC:29474
Judges: Justice Ajay Mohan Goel
Judgment Date: 29 August 2025
Parties
Plaintiff / Non-applicant: Zydus Wellness Products Ltd., manufacturer of glucose-based energy drinks sold under registered trademarks Glucon-D and Glucon-C.
Defendants / Applicants:
- Defendant No.1: Karnal Foods Pack Cluster Limited.
- Defendant No.2: Engaged in allegedly producing infringing products under names Glucose-D, Glucospoon-D, and Glucose-C.
- Defendants No.3 & 4: Other associated parties (one ex parte, others represented).
Factual Background
Zydus Wellness Products Ltd., the plaintiff, is the registered proprietor of the trademarks Glucon-D and Glucon-C, both of which enjoy wide recognition and goodwill in India. The dispute arose when the defendants began marketing glucose-based drink mixes under deceptively similar marks such as Glucose-D, Glucospoon-D, and Glucose-C. To protect its rights, Zydus issued its first cease-and-desist notice on 28 April 2023 to Defendant No.2, followed by further notices in May 2023, July 2023, and again in 2024.
On 19 July 2024, Defendant No.1 even executed a notarised undertaking pledging not to infringe Zydus’s trademarks, yet infringing sales continued unabated. Despite repeated warnings, the defendants persisted in marketing their products online through platforms like IndiaMart and Trade India. Matters escalated in December 2024 when Defendant No.2 allegedly offered infringing products directly to the plaintiff’s counsel via WhatsApp, which Zydus treated as the latest cause of action.
In response, the plaintiff filed a Commercial Suit in 2025, accompanied by an application for interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC, but crucially, without resorting to the mandatory pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act.
Reliefs Claimed
The plaintiff sought:
- Permanent and mandatory injunctions against defendants for infringement and passing off.
- Delivery up and destruction of infringing goods.
- Rendition of accounts/damages of ₹1,00,77,000.
- Mandatory takedown orders against online listings.
- Declaration of Glucon-D as a well-known mark under Section 2(1)(zg) of the Trademarks Act, 1999
Interim Relief Application
In its OMP No. 17 of 2025, Zydus sought urgent ex parte injunctions restraining defendants from:
- Manufacturing, selling, or advertising infringing products.
- Using deceptively similar trade dress.
- Displaying infringing marks online.
- Disposing of assets that could affect the recovery of damages.
Plaintiff’s Arguments
The plaintiff, however, maintained that the suit was properly instituted as urgent relief was clearly warranted. It stressed that the defendants were flagrantly and continuously infringing its well-known trademarks, despite repeated legal notices and even a notarised undertaking. Zydus argued that the matter could not be trivialised as stale because the last cause of action had arisen in December 2024, when Defendant No.2 directly offered the infringing products via WhatsApp to its counsel.
This, according to the plaintiff, made the need for urgent judicial intervention evident. It asserted that the continuous violation of its rights, coupled with the defendants’ deliberate disregard of undertakings, justified a quia timet action, thereby bringing the suit outside the scope of Section 12A’s mediation requirement.
Defendants’ Arguments
The defendants argued that the suit was not maintainable as it was filed in violation of Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, which makes pre-institution mediation mandatory unless urgent interim relief is genuinely contemplated. According to them, the plaintiff’s reliance on “urgency” was nothing but a façade. They pointed out that Zydus had been aware of the alleged infringement since April 2023 and had consistently issued notices thereafter, yet it chose to approach the court only in 2025. Such a delay of nearly two years, the defendants contended, revealed the absence of any real urgency.
To buttress their submission, they placed reliance on key Supreme Court rulings: Patil Automation Pvt. Ltd. v. Rakheja Engineers Pvt. Ltd. (2022), which held Section 12A to be mandatory; Yamini Manohar v. T.K.D. Keerthi (2024), which cautioned courts against allowing plaintiffs to bypass mediation under the guise of urgency; and M/s Dhanbad Fuels Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (2025), which summarised the principles governing the urgent relief exception.
Issues
- Whether the suit was barred under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 due to non-compliance with pre-institution mediation.
- Whether the urgent interim relief exception applied in the present case.
- Whether the plaint was liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC.
Relevant Legal Provisions
- Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC: Rejection of plaint where barred by law.
- Section 12A, Commercial Courts Act, 2015: Mandatory pre-institution mediation before filing commercial suits, unless urgent interim relief is contemplated.
Supreme Court Precedents:
Patil Automation (2022): Section 12A mandatory; violation results in rejection of the plaint.
Yamini Manohar (2024): Courts must scrutinise urgency claims; an interim prayer cannot be a camouflage.
Dhanbad Fuels (2025): Summarised principles; urgent interim relief must be genuine, not an excuse.
Court’s Analysis
1. Knowledge of Infringement
- Plaintiff was aware of infringement since April 2023.
- Continuous issuance of notices showed longstanding knowledge.
- Filing suit in 2025 without mediation suggested deliberate bypass.
2. Nature of Urgency
- No “qualitative change” in the cause of action from April 2023 to 2025.
- Last alleged infringement in December 2024 did not alter the continuing nature of the cause.
- Plaintiff failed to demonstrate why urgent relief was unavoidable.
3. Camouflage to Avoid Mediation
- Court found plaintiff’s plea of urgency silent on necessity to skip mediation.
- Application appeared to be a camouflage to avoid Section 12A.
- As per Supreme Court guidance, such misuse must be curtailed.
4. Application of Precedents
- Applied Patil Automation: Section 12A is mandatory; suits filed in violation must be rejected.
- Followed Yamini Manohar: Courts must examine if urgent relief is genuine.
- Relied on Dhanbad Fuels: Outlined test for urgent relief from plaintiff’s standpoint but emphasised courts’ duty to check misuse.
Court’s Findings
- Section 12A mandatory—pre-institution mediation could not be bypassed.
- Plaintiff’s claim of urgency was unsubstantiated; infringement was ongoing since 2023.
- Filing without mediation amounted to a statutory violation.
- Suit was thus barred by law and liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC.
Final Order
- Application allowed.
- Plaint rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC for failure to comply with Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act.
- No order as to costs.
- Miscellaneous applications disposed of.
Significance of the Judgment
1. Reinforcement of Section 12A Mandate
The judgment reiterates that pre-institution mediation is mandatory in commercial disputes unless a bona fide urgent interim relief is required. This is aligned with the Supreme Court’s vision of mediation as an integral mechanism of access to justice.
2. Limits to “Urgent Relief Exception”
The court clarified that mere prayers for interim injunctions cannot justify bypassing mediation. Plaintiffs must demonstrate urgency with facts, else their suits risk rejection.
3. Trademark Enforcement Strategy
The decision highlights the balance between IPR enforcement and statutory compliance. Trademark holders cannot circumvent statutory mediation on the pretext of urgency when infringement is long-standing.
4. Judicial Consistency
The High Court faithfully applied the Supreme Court’s rulings in Patil Automation, Yamini Manohar, and Dhanbad Fuels, thereby strengthening consistency in commercial law jurisprudence.
Conclusion
Himachal Pradesh High Court’s ruling in Zydus Wellness v. Karnal Foods Pack Cluster Limited & Ors. (2025) is a landmark affirmation of Section 12A’s mandatory nature. While intellectual property rights deserve robust protection, the court emphasised that statutory mediation cannot be bypassed under a false guise of urgency.
The decision reinforces the judiciary’s pro-mediation stance and signals to litigants that commercial suits must strictly adhere to procedural mandates, failing which courts will not hesitate to reject plaints outright.
Important Link
Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams