Karnataka High Court
COMAP/556/2025 of M/S V.S PLASTICS Vs RAHUL JAIN on 24 September 2026
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
HC-KAR
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
HC-KAR
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,
HC-KAR
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
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
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
HC-KAR
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
HC-KAR
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