Division Bench dismisses ITC's appeal seeking exemption from mediation under Commercial Courts Act, 2015, emphasizing that urgency for interim relief must be clearly demonstrated
In a significant ruling dated October 12, 2026, the Calcutta High Court Division Bench comprising Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty and Justice Partha Pratim Roy dismissed the appeal filed by ITC Limited challenging a Single Judge's order that refused to exempt the company from mandatory pre-litigation mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The suit filed by ITC alleged trademark infringement, copyright violation, and passing off by SMM Tobacco Private Limited and others in relation to counterfeit cigarettes and tobacco products.
ITC had sought urgent interim relief and dispensation of the mediation requirement, claiming that the respondents were engaged in unauthorized counterfeiting and distribution. The appellant contended that due to the imminent and continuing harm, immediate judicial intervention was necessary without first exhausting mediation.
However, the Court held that Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act mandates that only suits which "contemplate any urgent interim relief" may be exempted from pre-litigation mediation. The Court clarified that this means the plaint and supporting documents must explicitly demonstrate the necessity for urgent relief to prevent irreversible injury. Merely alleging a continuing wrong or delay in filing the suit does not automatically qualify for exemption.
The Bench noted that ITC had filed a First Information Report (FIR) and initiated police action as soon as it became aware of illicit activities in July 2026 but delayed filing the civil suit until August 27, 2026, without explaining the lag. The Court emphasized that criminal proceedings and civil suits can be pursued concurrently and the absence of explanation for delay weakened the claim of urgency.
Referring to precedents including the Supreme Court judgment in Novenco Building and Industry A/S v. Xero Energy Engineering Solutions Private Limited (2026) and other landmark cases, the Court underscored that appellate courts should not interfere with the trial Court's discretion unless it is exercised arbitrarily, perversely, or ignoring relevant facts. Since the Single Judge's reasoning was plausible and reasonable, the Division Bench upheld the refusal to exempt the suit from mediation and directed return of the plaint.
The judgment reinforces the principle that in intellectual property disputes, the requirement of pre-litigation mediation under the Commercial Courts Act remains mandatory unless clear and urgent interim relief is demonstrably necessary. It clarifies that the mere existence of ongoing infringement does not automatically justify bypassing mediation, ensuring that parties engage in alternative dispute resolution before burdening the courts.
Bottom Line:
Commercial Courts Act, 2015 Section 12A - In a commercial suit for trade mark infringement, copyright infringement and passing off, exemption from pre-litigation mediation is not automatic - Plaintiff must show from plaint, documents and facts that suit contemplates urgent interim relief and that apprehended injury is imminent and may become irreversible if mediation is first exhausted - Mere allegation of continuing wrong or reliance on delay not being fatal to infringement action is insufficient - Appellate Court will not interfere with discretionary order of trial Court unless discretion is exercised arbitrarily, perversely or in disregard of relevant facts.
Statutory provision(s):
Commercial Courts Act, 2015 Section 12A
ITC Limited v. SMM Tobacco Private Limited, (Calcutta)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2997245
