Dismissed¶39

Gautham Nithyanandham Proprietor of M/s.Tvs Snuff Company, v. M s Mvs Gramany Sons

Madras HC2 Mar 2026A/4559/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 12A Commercial Courts Act 2015; pre-institution mediation; plaint rejection; Order VII Rule 11(a) & (d) CPC; XIV Rule 8 Original Side Rules; judge's summons; urgent interim relief exemption; continuing infringement; trademark infringement and passing off; delay does not negate urgency; Novenco Building and Industry A/S v. Zero Energy Engineering Solutions Private Ltd. MANU/SC/1449/2025 applied; Madras High Court Commercial Division; TVS Snuff Company; MVS Gramany Sons.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to reject the plaint in C.S (Comm.Div) No. 154 of 2025 declined; the application is rejected. ¶39

Gautham Nithyanandham Proprietor of M/s.Tvs Snuff Company, Vs M s Mvs Gramany Sons — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Prayer to reject the plaint in C.S (Comm.Div) No. 154 of 2025 declined; the application is rejected.

¶39

Issue for consideration

Whether the plaint in C.S (Comm.Div) No. 154 of 2025 is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(a) & (d) CPC for want of cause of action / as barred by law on the ground that the plaintiffs did not resort to pre-institution mediation as mandated by Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, i.e., whether the suit contemplates urgent interim relief despite the delay in institution.

¶26

Court's answer

The suit is an action for both infringement and passing off, and the first defendant does not deny that the marks continue to be applied to products sold by it; therefore, the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Novenco are squarely applicable — in actions alleging continuing infringement of intellectual property rights, urgency must be assessed in the context of the ongoing injury and the public interest in preventing deception, and mere delay in institution of the suit does not negate urgency when the infringement is continuing.

¶39

Ratio / Principle

Since the Novenco principles apply, the objection of non-compliance with Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 fails and the judge's summons seeking rejection of the plaint is rejected.

¶39

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, J.; dated 02-03-2026) — A No. 4559 of 2025 in C.S (Comm Div) No. 154 of 2025. A judge's summons under XIV Rule 8 of the Original Side Rules read with Order VII Rule 11(a) & (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure sought rejection of the plaint for want of cause of action and as barred by law, on the ground that the plaintiffs did not resort to pre-institution mediation as mandated by Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The applicant/first defendant argued that the suit, instituted on or about November, 2024 after a lawyer's notice dated 02.12.2023, did not contemplate urgent interim relief, and sought to distinguish Novenco Building and Industry A/S v. Zero Energy Engineering Solutions Private Ltd., MANU/SC/1449/2025, as relating solely to trademark infringement. Rejecting these contentions, the Court held that the suit is for both infringement and passing off, and the first defendant does not deny that the marks continue to be applied to products sold by it; accordingly, the Novenco principles are squarely applicable — urgency in actions of continuing IP infringement is assessed in the context of the ongoing injury and the public interest in preventing deception, and mere delay in institution does not negate urgency where the infringement is continuing. The application was rejected.

¶1

A No. 4559 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 02-03-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

¶6

A No. 4559 of 2025 IN

¶7

C.S(COMM DIV) NO. 154 OF 2025

¶8

Gautham Nithyanandham, Proprietor of M/s.TVS Snuff Company,

¶9

171/70 Kodambakkam High Road,

¶10

T.Nagar ,Chennai 600 017, Tamil Nadu.

¶11

Also at Survey No.151/12 B.N.Kandigai Taluk, Aaladu post, Ponneri Taluk, Thiruvallur District 601 204.

¶12

..Applicant(s)

¶13

¶14

M/s. MVS Gramany Sons (a registered Partnership firm-Reg No.365/2005) No. 70, Chinnambedu Sakkarachetty Kulam, GNT Road Puduvayal P.O 601206, Thiruvallur District, Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Partners, Mr. J Nandakumar and Mr. J. Vimalanathan

¶15

J. Nandakumar, Partner of M/s.M.V.S.Gramany & Sons,No 70, Chinnambedu Sakkarachetty Kulam, GNT Road, Puduvayal PO 601206, Thiruvallur District ,Tamil Nadu.

¶16

J. Vimalanathan

¶17

No.70, Chinnambedu Sakkarachetty Kulam, GNT Road Puduvayal PO 601206, Thiruvallur District, Tamil Nadu.

¶18

J Nithyanandham 171/70 Kodambakkam High Road, T Nagar, Chennai 600 017

¶19

..Respondent(s)

¶20

__________ Page1 of 6

¶21

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶22

A No. 4559 of 2025

¶23

PRAYER: Judge’s summons filed under XIV Rule 8 of Original Side Rules read with Order VII Rule 11(a) & (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure praying to reject the plaint in C.S (Comm.Div) No.154 of 2025 for want of cause of action and as barred by law.

¶24

For Applicant(s): Ms.Aanchal M.Nichani for M/s.Eshwar Sabapathy For Respondent(s): Mr.S.Shivathanu Mohan For M/s.Ramesh Umapathy for R1 & R3 Mr.S.Diwakar for R4

¶25

ORDER

¶26

The present application is filed for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the plaintiffs did not resort to pre-institution mediation, as mandated by Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

¶27

Learned counsel for the applicant / first defendant submits that the suit was instituted on or about November, 2024, after issuing lawyer’s notice dated 02.12.2023. Therefore, she submits that the suit does not contemplate urgent interim relief. She submits that the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Novenco Building and Industry A/S v. Zero Energy Engineering Solutions Private Ltd. and Others, MANU/SC/1449/2025, is distinguishable because the dispute therein related solely to infringement of trademark.

¶28

Page2 of 6

¶29

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶30

A No. 4559 of 2025

¶31

These contentions are refuted by learned counsel for the plaintiffs on

¶32

the ground that in an action for infringement and passing off each act of infringement or passing off, as the case may be, gives rise to a fresh cause of action.

¶33

In Novenco, at paragraphs 23 and 26, it was held as follows:

¶34

“23. From the standpoint of the Appellant, each day of continuing infringement aggravates injury to its intellectual property and erodes its market standing. The urgency, therefore, is inherent in the nature of the wrong and does not lie in the age of the cause but in the persistence of the peril. The court cannot be unmindful of the fact that intellectual property disputes are not confined to the private realm. When imitation masquerades as innovation, it sows confusion among consumers, taints the market place and diminishes faith in the sanctity of the trade. The public interest, therefore, becomes the moral axis upon which the urgency turns. Therefore, the public interest element, need to prevent confusion in the market and to protect consumers from deception further imparts a colour of immediacy to the reliefs sought.

¶35

__________ Page3 of 6

¶36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶37

A No. 4559 of 2025

¶38

26. For the reasons stated above, we hold that (i) In actions alleging continuing infringement of intellectual property rights, urgency must be assessed in the context of the ongoing injury and the public interest in preventing deception, (ii) Mere delay in institution of a suit by itself, does not negate urgency when the infringement is continuing.”

¶39

The present suit, as is evident from the plaint, is an action for both infringement and passing off. The first defendant does not deny that the marks continue to be applied to products sold by the first defendant. Therefore, the above principles are squarely applicable to this case. Consequently, this application is rejected.

¶40

02-03-2026

¶41

Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order (2/3) Neutral Citation: Yes/No

¶42

KAL

¶43

__________ Page4 of 6

¶44

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶45

A No. 4559 of 2025

¶46

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.

¶47

KAL

¶48

A No. 4559 of 2025 IN C.S(COMM DIV) NO. 154 OF 2025

¶49

02-03-2026

¶50

(2/2)

¶51

__________ Page5 of 6

¶52

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶53

A No. 4559 of 2025

¶54

A No. 4559 of 2025

¶55

¶56

M s MVS Gramany Sons

¶57

(a registered Partnership firm-Reg No.365/2005) No. 70, Chinnambedu Sakkarachetty Kulam, GNT Road Puduvayal P.O 601206, Thiruvallur District Tamil Nadu Rep by its Partners, Mr. J Nandakumar and Mr. J. Vimalanathan

¶58