Authority: High Court at Calcutta, Commercial Appellate Division

Order Date: 13.11.2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Plaintiff – Malhotra International Private Limited; Respondents – Rohan Malhotra and others; intervenor – I.L.S.
  • Nature of proceedings: Appeal against the order dated 14 October 2026 (TEMPAPO‑IPD 7/2026) which had refused pre‑institution mediation dispensation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, returned the plaint with court fees, and de‑registered the suit.
  • Allegations: Plaintiff claims it has been manufacturing and marketing shaving blades under the name “PANAMA” since 1951 (trademark registered since 1954). Respondents allegedly began marketing identical “PANAMA” blades in September 2026, constituting infringement and passing off.
  • Procedural background: Single Judge did not consider leave under Clause 14 of the Letters Patent, 1865 nor Order II Rule 2 of the CPC. Plaintiff sought urgent interim relief; Department had previously barred filing of interlocutory applications together with the plaint, based on an Office Order dated 20 January 2026 (originating from a March 26 2025 order).
  • Legal arguments: Plaintiff relied on Supreme Court precedents (Patil Automation (2022), Yamini Manohar (2023), Dhanbad Fuels (2025), Novenco Building (2026)) asserting that Section 12A is mandatory but can be dispensed where urgent interim relief is evident. The court examined the test for urgency, the nature of IP infringement, and the public interest in preventing deception.
  • Respondents contended that they had been selling “PANAMA” blades since 20 January 2026, alleging delay by plaintiff; therefore, dispensation should be denied.
  • The bench also considered the validity of the Office Order restricting interim applications, hearing consensus from the Bar that such restriction impedes access to urgent relief.

Final Outcome

  • The impugned order dated 14 Oct 2026 is set aside.
  • Leave under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 is granted; the plaint is admitted for trial.
  • The Office Order dated 20 Jan 2026 (and the underlying March 26 2025 order) is set aside; the Department shall permit filing of interim applications simultaneously with the plaint.
  • Leave under Clause 14 of the Letters Patent, 1865 is ordered to be shown cause by respondents.
  • Leave under Order II Rule 2 of the CPC, 1908 is granted.
  • TEMPAPO‑IPD/7/2026 and connected applications are disposed of without any order as to costs.
  • The court expressly reserves the injunction claim for determination in the forthcoming injunction petition; no merits of the injunction are decided at this stage.

Topics: Section 12A Dispensation, Trademark Infringement, Court Procedure