Supreme Court Clarifies 'Urgency' Under Commercial Courts Act, Ruling Delay Doesn't Bar Interim Relief in Ongoing IP Infringement

New Delhi – In a landmark decision with significant ramifications for intellectual property (IP) and commercial litigation strategy, the Supreme Court of India has held that a delay in filing a suit does not extinguish the element of urgency required to bypass mandatory pre-institution mediation in cases of continuing IP infringement. The ruling provides crucial clarity on the interpretation of Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, which mandates mediation before the institution of a suit unless the plaintiff seeks urgent interim relief.

A Division Bench comprising Justice PV Sanjay Kumar and Justice Alok Aradhe, in the case of Novenco Building and Industry A/S v. Xero Energy Engineering Solutions Pvt Ltd & Anr , overturned a Himachal Pradesh High Court decision that had dismissed a suit for non-compliance with the mediation requirement. The apex court decisively stated that for ongoing wrongs like IP infringement, urgency is an inherent and persistent feature.

"The urgency 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 observed, delivering a principle that reshapes the procedural landscape for commercial disputes.

---

Background of the Dispute: A Dealership Gone Wrong

The case originated from a commercial dispute between Novenco Building and Industry, a Danish company, and its former Indian distributor, Xero Energy Engineering Solutions. Novenco alleged that Xero Energy had breached their dealership agreement by establishing a competing entity, Aeronaut Fans Industry, to manufacture and sell industrial fans identical to Novenco's products under a deceptively similar name.

Novenco claimed it discovered the alleged infringement during an inspection in July 2022. Following this discovery, it terminated the dealership agreement and issued cease-and-desist notices. However, the commercial suit was not filed before the Himachal Pradesh High Court until June 2024. Along with the plaint, Novenco filed an application for an ad-interim injunction and sought an exemption from the mandatory pre-institution mediation under Section 12A, citing the urgent need to halt the ongoing infringement.

The Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the suit, finding that the significant delay of nearly two years between the discovery of the alleged infringement and the filing of the suit demonstrated a lack of genuine urgency. The court held that this delay made pre-institution mediation mandatory. This view was subsequently upheld by a Division Bench of the High Court, which reasoned that the concept of continuous infringement could not, by itself, be used to bypass the statutory requirement for mediation.

Supreme Court's Analysis: Reframing Urgency and Recurring Wrongs

Reversing the High Court's orders, the Supreme Court conducted a meticulous analysis of the purpose and application of Section 12A. The Bench held that the High Courts had fundamentally misapplied the test for urgency by delving into the merits of the case and the plaintiff’s conduct, rather than focusing on the nature of the relief sought as disclosed in the plaint.

The core of the Supreme Court's reasoning rested on the legal principle of a recurring cause of action in IP infringement cases. The judgment authored by Justice Aradhe clarified that the harm is not a single event but a continuous series of wrongful acts.

"Each act of manufacture, sale, or offer for sale of the infringing product constitutes a fresh wrong and recurring cause of action," the Bench observed.

This perspective is critical because it means that mere delay in bringing the first action does not grant the infringer a license to continue their activities. The Court asserted that such a delay "does not legalise an infringement or defeat the right to injunctive relief." The "peril" for the plaintiff persists with every infringing product sold, thus maintaining the urgency for judicial intervention.

The Plaintiff's Perspective and Public Interest

The Supreme Court directed that the expression “contemplates any urgent interim relief” must be examined from the plaintiff's standpoint. The critical question is whether the plaint, read as a whole, demonstrates an immediate need for protection against ongoing injury.

Furthermore, the Court expanded the lens of urgency beyond the private interests of the litigants to include the broader public interest. It noted that IP infringement, particularly trademark and passing-off cases, directly impacts consumers and the integrity of the market.

“When imitation masquerades as innovation, it sows confusion among consumers, taints the marketplace and diminishes faith in the sanctity of the trade,” Justice Aradhe wrote. This element of public deception, the Court held, "imparts a colour of immediacy to the relief sought."

The judgment strongly cautioned against a hyper-technical application of procedural formalities that would lead to substantive injustice. Forcing a plaintiff to enter into mediation while the defendant continues to profit from the alleged infringement would be counterintuitive to the goals of justice.

"The insistence of pre-institution mediation in a situation of ongoing infringement, in effect, would render the plaintiff remediless allowing the infringer to continue to profit under the protection of procedural formality," the Court concluded.

Distilled Principles and Implications for Litigators

The Supreme Court's ruling provides a clear and actionable framework for benches and the bar when dealing with Section 12A. The key legal principles distilled from the judgment are:

1. Mediation is the Rule, Exemption is the Exception: Pre-institution mediation remains compulsory unless the plaint and its accompanying documents clearly demonstrate a real and immediate need for urgent interim relief.
2. Focus on the Plaint, Not the Merits: The court's assessment of urgency must be confined to the pleadings and the nature of the harm alleged, not a premature evaluation of the merits of the claim for an injunction.
   
   
3. Ongoing Infringement Creates Inherent Urgency: Delay in filing a suit, on its own, does not negate urgency when the alleged infringement is of a continuing nature, causing recurring injury to the plaintiff and potentially harming public interest.
   
   
4. No Evasion of Mediation: The Court also warned that plaintiffs cannot use "pro forma or anticipatory prayers for interim relief" merely as a device to circumvent the mandatory mediation process. The need for urgency must be genuine.

This judgment will be widely welcomed by IP rights holders, who often face the challenge of infringers using procedural delays to their advantage. For commercial litigators, it provides a powerful precedent to argue for urgent hearings and interim injunctions, even if there has been a time lag in approaching the court, provided the infringing activity is ongoing. Conversely, it places an onus on defendants to demonstrate that the alleged harm is not continuous or that the plaintiff's claim of urgency is a mere artifice.

The appellant, Novenco, was represented by Senior Advocate Gaurav Pachnanda, who was assisted by a team including Advocates Pankaj Soni, Vineet Rohilla, and Shradha Karol. The respondents were represented by Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat, along with Advocates Abhishek Babbar and Harshit Anand.