Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(xix) As regards prosecution, an argument that it is imperative for the plaintiff to prosecute not only the defendant but also similarly placed alleged infringers is not an argument to contend that Section 12-A can be https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis  C.S(Comm. Div.)No.208 of 2022 given a go by.

(xx) Further argument that if the defendants are called for a mediation, they would vanish from the market cannot be accepted for two reasons /facets which are fatal to the plaintiff. One facet is, an argument that an alleged infringer being called for mediation would lead to the infringers stopping the infringement being made as a ground to circumnavigate Section 12-A is no argument as it begs the question / runs contrary to the very spirit and objective behind section 12-A of CCA and secondly, if the defendant and other similarly placed alleged infringers stop their activities that would only enure to the benefit of the plaintiff, promoting the objective behind Section 12-A including docket explosion which has also been touched upon by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Patil Automation principle.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis  C.S(Comm. Div.)No.208 of 2022 '62. The potential of Section 89 of the CPC for resolving disputes has remained largely untapped on account of the fact that mediation has become the product of volition of the parties. Courts, no doubt, have begun to respond positively. However, there was a pressing need to decongest the trial courts, in commercial matters in particular, as they bear the brunt of docket explosion. It is noteworthy that Section 12A provides for a bypass and a fast-track route without for a moment taking the precious time of a court. At this juncture, it must be immediately noticed that the Law -giver has, in Section 12A, provided for pre-institution mediation only in suits, which do not contemplate any urgent interim relief. Therefore, pre-institution mediation has been mandated only in a class of suits. We say this for the reason that in suits which contemplate urgent interim relief, the Law-giver has carefully vouch-safed immediate access to justice as contemplated ordinarily through the courts. The carving out of a class of suits and selecting them for compulsory mediation, harmonises with the attainment of the object of the law. The load on the Judges is lightened. They can concentrate on matters where urgent interim relief is contemplated and, on other matters, which already crowd their dockets.' (xxviii) A careful perusal of Paragraphs 62 and 81 of Patil Automation case law brings to light the fact that Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly noticed that pre-institution mediation has been mandated only https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis  C.S(Comm. Div.)No.208 of 2022 in a class of suits i.e., class of suits where there is no contemplation of urgent interim reliefs. The aforementioned expressions 'interim relief' as well as 'urgent interim relief' have already been delineated by this Court supra. As regards, Patil Automation case law, that was a matter where in paragraph 81, it was made clear that it is an observation made on the facts of that case but the principle i.e., ratio is Section 12-A of CCA is mandatory and non compliance warrants suo motu rejection of plaint. That Section 12-A is mandatory means that there can be no application for exemption from the same circumnavigating Section 12-A.