Exide Industries Limited vs Amara Raja Energy And Mobility Limited on 25 July, 2025

Calcutta High Court

Exide Industries Limited vs Amara Raja Energy And Mobility Limited on 25 July, 2025

Author: Ravi Krishan Kapur

Bench: Ravi Krishan Kapur

                   IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
               INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS DIVISION
                            ORIGINAL SIDE



BEFORE:
The Hon'ble Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur


                          IA NO. GA-COM/2/2025
                            In IP-COM/18/2025

                      EXIDE INDUSTRIES LIMITED
                                 Vs
              AMARA RAJA ENERGY AND MOBILITY LIMITED


For the petitioner    :     Mr. S.N. Mookherjee, Senior Advocate
                            Mr. Ranjan Bachawat, Senior Advocate
                            Mr. Ratnanko Banerji, Senior Advocate
                            Mr. Sayantan Bose, Senior Advocate
                            Mr. Rudraman Bhattacharyya, Senior Advocate
                            Mr. Debnath Ghosh, Senior Advocate
                            Mr. Sayan Roychowdhury, Advocate
                            Mr. Dhruv Chadha, Advocate
                            Mr. Sagnik Bose, Advocate
                            Mr. Paritosh Sinha, Advocate
                            Mr. K. K. Pandey, Advocate
                            Ms. Suhrita Majumdar, Advocate
                            Mr. Kironjit B. Majumder, Advocate
                            Ms. Pooja Sett, Advocate
                            Mr. Dipro Dawn, Advocate
                            Ms. Sayani De, Advocate
                            Ms. Mallika Bothra, Advocate

For the respondent    :     Mr. Jayanta Kumar Mitra, Senior Advocate
                            Mr. Sudipto Sarkar, Senior Advocate
                            Mr. Tilak Bose, Senior Advocate
                            Mr. Subhasis Sengupta, Advocate
                            Mr. Adarsh Ramanujun, Advocate
                            Mr. Rohit Banerjee, Advocate
                            Mr. Subhojit Sengupta, Advocate
                            Mr. Ankit Virmani, Advocate
                            Mr. Sarosij Dasgupta, Advocate
                            Mr. Satyaki Mukherjee, Advocate
                            Mr. Amrita Panja Moulick, Advocate
                                        2


                              Mr. Ruchika Agarwala, Advocate
                              Mr. Suryaneel Das, Advocate
                              Mr. Akash Munshi, Advocate
                              Mr.Aditya Mondal, Advocate
                              Ms. Siddhartha Banerjee, Advocate
                              Mr. D. Kar, Advocate
                              Mr. Anish Gupta, Advocate
                              Mr. Chiranjit Pal, Advocate

Reserved on             :     14.07.2025

Judgment on             :     25.07.2025

Ravi Krishan Kapur, J.:

1. This is an application seeking revocation of dispensation granted under

section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

2. The suit is for infringement and passing off. It is pleaded that in or about

the last week of February 2025, the petitioner’s marketing team at Kolkata

were alerted about the launch of a product under the mark ELITO in a

predominantly red colour packging and a shattered “O” device.

3. There is nothing to prove that the plaintiff had any knowledge of the

impugned product prior to February 2025. There is no fraud nor deception

which had been committed by the plaintiff nor is there any untrue

statement made in the plaint. There has also been no suppression and the

entire case of the defendant in seeking revocation of dispensation is

misconceived and based on surmises and assumptions. In support of such

contention, the plaintiff relies on Yamini Manohar vs. T.K.D. Keerthi (2024)

5 SCC 815, Unique Entrepreneurs and Finance Ltd. vs. Really Agritech Pvt.

Ltd. and Anr. (2025) OnLine Cal 2426 and Dhanbad Fules Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union

of India and Anr. (2025) SCC OnLine SC 1129.

3

4. The defendant has claimed revocation of dispensation on the ground that

the impugned product i.e. automotive battery bearing mark ELITO was

disclosed by the defendant on 30 May, 2024 before the appropriate

Regulatory Authorities and was made available on the website of the

defendant. In addition, the product ELITO was also disclosed on July 10,

2024 pursuant to Regulation 30 and 34 of SEBI (Listing Obligations and

Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2015 in the Annual Report for the

Financial Year 2023-2024. It is alleged that the above Reports were all

available in the public domain. As a consequence, the plaintiff is deemed to

have had knowledge of the above facts. It is further alleged that the

defendant has been extensively using the impugned product since 2023

and the plaintiff ought to have known the same. In this background, the

plaintiff has suppressed knowledge of the above facts in filing this suit and

leave granted under section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act is liable to

be revoked. In support of such contention, the defendant relies on Patil

Automation (P) Ltd. vs. Rakheja Engineers (P) Ltd., (2022) 10 SCC 1, Yamini

Manohar vs. T.K.D. Keerthi (2024) 5 SCC 815, Novenco Building & Industry

A/S vs. Xero Energy Engineering Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Anr. 2024: HHC 7518

and V. Prabhakar vs. Saga Films, (2022) SCC OnLine Mad 9091.

5. Section 12A of the Act provides as follows:

“12A. Pre-Institution Mediation and Settlement-

(1) A suit, which does not contemplate any urgent interim relief under this
Act, shall not be instituted unless the plaintiff exhausts the remedy of
pre-institution mediation in accordance with such manner and procedure
as may be prescribed by rules made by the Central Government.

(2) The Central Government may, by notification, authorise the
Authorities constituted under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (39
of 1987), for the purposes of pre-institution mediation.

4

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Legal Services Authorities
Act, 1987, the Authority authorised by the Central Government under
sub-section (2) shall complete the process of mediation within a period of
three months from the date of application made by the plaintiff under
sub-section (1):

Provided that the period of mediation may be extended for a further
period of two months with the consent of the parties:

Provided further that, the period during which the parties remained
occupied with the pre-institution mediation, such period shall not be
computed for the purpose of limitation under the Limitation Act, 1963 (36
of 1963).

(4) If the parties to the commercial dispute arrive at a settlement, the
same shall be reduced into writing and shall be signed by the parties to
the dispute and the mediator.

(5) The settlement arrived at under this section shall have the same
status and effect as if it is an arbitral award on agreed terms under sub-

section (4) of section 30 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26
of 1996).)”

6. The positive assertion in the plaint is that the plaintiff came to learn of the

impugned product in the last week of February, 2025 and the same is a

continuing cause of action. There is a distinction between direct knowledge,

conjectures and inferences. In attributing knowledge for the purposes of

revocation of dispensation nothing less than direct knowledge of the

plaintiff would suffice. There is nothing which the defendant has been able

to demonstrate whereby actual knowledge of the impugned product can be

imputed to the plaintiff prior to February, 2025. The entire case of the

defendant in seeking revocation is based on conjectures, surmises and

inferences which is no ground for revocation of dispensation.

7. There can be no straight jacket formula in such cases. Despite the

mandatory requirement of the Act, (Patil Automation (P) Ltd. vs. Rakheja

Engineers (P) Ltd., (2022) 10 SCC 1 and Dhanbad Fules Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of
5

India and Anr. (2025) SCC OnLine SC 1129), the limited ground of filing of a

suit for urgent interim reliefs has been expressly preserved in the section.

There is no material fact which has been deliberately concealed or

suppressed in the plaint. The excerpts insofar as the Annual Reports of the

defendant are concerned cannot impute direct knowledge to the plaintiff.

As pleaded in the plaint, the relevance of the Annual Report was only for

the purpose of asserting that the colour green was associated and identified

with the defendant. This exercise was only undertaken in February, 2025

after the plaintiff had come across the impugned product. In this context,

while carrying out internet searches vis-a-vis the Amara Raja Green colour,

the plaintiff had come across references of the Annual Report. The plaintiff

cannot be credited with knowledge of a 413-page Annual Report. In any

event, there is no microscopic analysis or mini-trial which the Court

undertakes in examining the question of revocation. To this extent, the

decision in V. Prabhakar vs. Saga Films (2022) SCC OnLine Mad 9091 is

distinguishable. In the cited decision on behalf of the respondent, the

plaintiff had nowhere mentioned in the pleadings when it came to learn of

the story. In this background, the Court held that the pleadings in the

plaint were extremely vague. Similarly, in Novenco Building & Industry A/S

vs. Xero Energy Engineering Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Anr. (Supra), the plaintiff

came to know of the alleged infringement in 2022 but nevertheless

instituted the action in 2024 without any explanation for the delay. In such

circumstances, the plaintiff cannot be deemed to have any knowledge of the

contents of any of the documents referred to by the defendant. Neither can

the defendant draw any benefit by alleging suppression. There is not a

single advertisement or hoarding or exhibition or new advertisement
6

showing that ELITO batteries had been launched in India. In any event,

this fact per se would have been insufficient to imply direct knowledge.

There is no other material to attribute actual direct knowledge of ELITO

batteries to the plaintiff available in red packaging prior to February 2025.

The plaintiff is not a shareholder of the defendant company and there is no

reason to suggest knowledge of the internal workings of the defendant to

the plaintiff. There is also no falsity nor deceit which can be ascribed to the

plaintiff.

8. In this context, the decision of Yamini Manohar vs. TKD Keerthi (Supra) is

distinguishable inasmuch as in that case the Hon’ble Supreme Court had

cautioned that deception and falsity must be apparent or established in

bypassing the statutory mechanism. There is no deception nor falsity nor

camouflage which the defendant has been able to establish or even

remotely identify. Similarly, in Unique Entrepreneurs and Finance Ltd. vs.

Really Agritech Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. (Supra) this Court had found as a matter

of fact that material facts i.e. the prior dealings and the presence of both

the parties in the trade fair had been deliberately suppressed in the plaint.

There is also no quarrel with the propositions laid down in Patil Automation

(P) Ltd. vs. Rakheja Engineers (p) Ltd. (Supra) and Dhanbad Fules Pvt. Ltd.

vs. Union of India and Anr. (Supra). However, both the decisions are

distinguishable and inapposite.

9. On a plain and holistic reading of the plaint and keeping in mind the

nature of the suit i.e. protecting of intellectual property rights, it would be

evident that the suit contemplates urgent reliefs and there are no grounds

which have been made out for revocation of dispensation granted under

section 12A of the Act. The burden of proof being on the defendant, it
7

would require something more than inferences, conjectures and

assumptions to attribute direct knowledge to the plaintiff. The plaintiff as

dominis litus i.e. master of his own cause and is in the best position to

decide the need for urgent interim reliefs and this cannot be lightly

interfered [Nocil Ltd. vs. Finorchem Ltd. & Anr. (Unreported decision dated

15 May 2025 passed by this Court in IP-COM/25/2024)].

10. In such circumstances, there is no merit in this application. Accordingly,

GA-COM/2/2025 is dismissed.

(RAVI KRISHAN KAPUR, J.)