2025 Supreme(SC) 1839

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJAY KUMAR, ALOK ARADHE, JJ.
Novenco Building And Industry A/S – Appellant
Versus
Xero Energy Engineering Solutions Private Ltd. & Anr. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 13019 of 2025 (@ Out of S.L.P. (C) No. 2753 of 2025)
Decided On : 27-10-2025

IMPORTANT POINTS(1) Before a commercial dispute is filed before court, alternative means of resolution of dispute are adopted, so that only the most trying cases come before courts.(2) Court must look beyond time lag and evaluate substance of plea for interim protection – Insistence of pre-institution mediation in a situation of ongoing infringement, in effect, would render plaintiff remediless.

Headnote:

(A) Commercial Courts Act, 2015 – Section 12A – Urgent interim relief – Action for infringement of Intellectual Property Rights – Rejection of plaint for non-compliance with Section 12A – Before a commercial dispute is filed before court, alternative means of resolution of dispute are adopted, so that only the most trying cases come before courts – Plaintiff can be exempted from requirement of Section 12A only when plaint and documents attached with it clearly show a real need for urgent interim intervention – A proforma or anticipatory prayer for urgent relief used as a device to skip mediation will be ignored and court can require parties to comply with Section 12A of Act – Court is not concerned with merits of urgent relief, but if relief sought seems to be plausibly urgent from standpoint of plaintiff court can dispense with requirement under Section 12A of Act. (Paras 16 and 20)

(B) Commercial Courts Act, 2015 – Section 12A – Interim Inunction – Suit alleging continuing infringement of patent and design rights – In actions alleging continuing infringement of intellectual property rights, urgency must be assessed in context of ongoing injury and public interest in preventing deception – Mere delay in institution of a suit by itself, does not negate urgency when infringement is continuing – Mere delay in bringing an action does not legalise an infringement and same cannot defeat right of proprietor to seek injunctive relief against dishonest user – Accompanying material demonstrates that such infringing activity is continuing and causing immediate and irreparable harm to appellant’s business reputation, goodwill and proprietary rights – Urgency is inherent in nature of wrong and does not lie in age of cause but in persistence of peril – Intellectual property disputes are not confined to private realm – When imitation masquerades as innovation, it sows confusion among consumers, taints market place and diminishes faith in sanctity of trade – Public interest becomes moral axis upon which urgency turns – Public interest element, need to prevent confusion in market and to protect consumers from deception further imparts colour of immediacy to reliefs sought – Appellant’s prayer for injunction cannot be characterised as mere camouflage to evade mediation – It is a real grievance founded on continuing nature of infringement and irreparable prejudice likely to be caused by delay – Court must look beyond time lag and evaluate substance of plea for interim protection – Insistence of pre-institution mediation in a situation of ongoing infringement, in effect, would render plaintiff remediless allowing infringer to continue to profit under protection of procedural formality – Section 12A of Act was not intended to achieve such kind of anomalous result – Impugned judgments quashed and set aside and Commercial Suit restored to file of High Court to be proceeded with on merits in accordance with law. (Paras 21, 22, 24, 26 and 27)

Facts of the case:
Present appeal calls for determination of expression ‘contemplates any urgent interim relief’ in Section 12A of Commercial Courts Act, 2015 in its application to an action for infringement of intellectual property rights.
Issue which arises for consideration in this appeal is whether a suit alleging continuing infringement of patent and design rights, accompanied by a prayer for interim injunction, can be said to contemplate urgent relief within meaning of Section 12A of the Act, notwithstanding certain delay in its institution.

Findings of Court:
Single Judge as well as Division Bench of High Court erred in construing test for urgent relief enumerated in Section 12A of Act, in as much as courts have proceeded to examine entitlement of appellant to urgent relief based on merits of the case rather than looking at the urgency as is evident from the plaint and documents annexed thereto from standpoint of plaintiff.
Impugned judgment dated 28.08.2024 of Single Judge in Commercial Suit No. 13 of 2024 and judgment dated 13.11.2024 of Division Bench of High Court in Commercial Appeal No.1 of 2024 are quashed and set aside. Commercial Suit No. 13 of 2024 is restored to file of High Court to be proceeded with on merits in accordance with law.

Result : Appeal allowed.