Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | C.A. No.-013019-013019 – 2025 |
| Diary Number | 1563/2025 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR |
| Bench | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR; HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE |
| Precedent Value | Binding on commercial courts in IP and related disputes |
| Overrules / Affirms | Quashes and sets aside Himachal Pradesh High Court orders; reaffirms and refines Section 12A jurisprudence |
| Type of Law | Commercial Courts Act 2015; Intellectual Property Enforcement |
| Questions of Law | Whether a suit for continuing IP infringement “contemplates any urgent interim relief” under Section 12A, dispensing with pre-filing mediation |
| Ratio Decidendi | The Court held that in suits alleging continuing infringement of IP rights, urgency must be gauged by the ongoing harm and public interest in preventing market confusion. Mere delay in institution does not negate urgency when infringement persists. The test under Section 12A focuses on whether the plaint and annexed documents, from the plaintiff’s standpoint, demonstrate a real need for immediate interim relief, not on the merits of that relief. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | Patil Automation Pvt. Ltd. v. Rakheja Engineers Pvt. Ltd. (2022) 10 SCC 1; Yamini Manohar v. T.K.D. Keerthi (2024) 5 SCC 815; Dhanbad Fuels (P) Ltd. v. UOI (2025) SCC OnLine SC 1129 |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | The mandatory nature of Section 12A; criteria for “contemplates any urgent interim relief” (subject-matter urgency, irreparable harm, public interest); established tests from prior two-Judge benches interpreting Section 12A |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The appellant, a Danish industrial-fan manufacturer, alleged that its former distributor and a related company manufactured and sold infringing fans under a similar name. After terminating the dealership and serving notices, the appellant’s expert confirmed infringement in December 2023. A commercial suit with an interim-injunction prayer was filed in June 2024 without pre-institution mediation. The Himachal Pradesh High Court rejected the plaint for non-compliance with Section 12A, finding no genuine urgency. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All commercial courts and subordinate courts handling IP/infringement suits |
| Persuasive For | High Courts considering Section 12A applications in other commercial matters |
| Overrules | Himachal Pradesh High Court’s decisions in Commercial Suit No. 13 of 2024 and Commercial Appeal No. 1 of 2024 |
| Follows | Patil Automation (2022); Yamini Manohar (2024); Dhanbad Fuels (2025) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- In continuing IP‐infringement suits, urgency arises from persistent harm and public interest in preventing consumer deception.
- Mere lapse of time between discovery and suit filing does not defeat the exception to pre-institution mediation under Section 12A.
- Courts must assess urgency by reading the plaint and annexures holistically from the plaintiff’s standpoint, not by examining merits.
- A genuine prayer for interim injunction in ongoing infringement cannot be treated as a device to evade statutory mediation.
- This decision binds commercial courts to grant mediation exemption where continuing harm is established, ensuring plaintiffs are not rendered remediless.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act mandates pre-institution mediation unless a suit “contemplates any urgent interim relief.”
- Prior benchmarks (Patil Automation, Yamini Manohar, Dhanbad Fuels) establish that urgency is determined by:
- Nature and subject-matter of the dispute
- Recurring cause of action in continuing wrongs
- Immediacy of irreparable harm, risk to rights, or public interest considerations
- Continuing acts of infringement each constitute fresh causes of action and aggravate injury to reputation, goodwill, and consumer trust.
- From the plaintiff’s perspective, ongoing infringement creates inherent urgency—delay in filing does not nullify the need for immediate relief.
- Pre-institution mediation cannot be enforced to the detriment of injunctive protection against continuous wrongs; otherwise statutory mediation would have an anomalous, remediless effect.
- High Court erred by focusing on time-lag and merits rather than on the urgency demonstrated in the plaint and annexures.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellant)
- The High Court applied an incorrect test, conflating merits with urgency under Section 12A.
- Urgent interim relief was sought bona fide to stop continuing infringement, not to bypass mediation.
- Delay in filing does not negate the need to prevent ongoing violations of IP rights.
- Plaint and annexed documents, including expert affidavit, show real need for immediate intervention.
Respondents
- No word in the plaint substantiated any urgency; suit was filed 18 months after cease-and-desist notice.
- Four-month gap after expert report, with no fresh infringement alleged, undermines claims of urgency.
- Application for interim relief cannot ipso facto serve as exemption from mandatory mediation.
Factual Background
The appellant, a Danish industrial‐fan manufacturer, granted an Indian dealership in 2017. Respondent companies allegedly began manufacturing and selling identical fans under a confusingly similar brand name from July 2022. The appellant terminated the dealership in October 2022, served cease-and-desist notices, and in December 2023 an expert inspection confirmed ongoing infringement. In June 2024, the appellant filed a Commercial Suit seeking injunctions and exemption from pre-filing mediation; the High Court rejected the plaint for non-compliance with Section 12A, finding no genuine urgency.
Statutory Analysis
Section 12A, inserted by the 2018 Amendment to the Commercial Courts Act 2015, provides:
- Mandatory pre-institution mediation for suits not contemplating urgent interim relief.
- Exemption where plaint and annexures demonstrate a real need for immediate judicial intervention.
- Mediation process to be completed within three months (extendable by consent).
- Settlements under Section 12A to have the status of an arbitral award.
The Court interpreted “contemplates any urgent interim relief” restrictively, focusing on the plaintiff’s standpoint, and clarified that continuing IP infringement triggers the mediation exception.
Alert Indicators
- Precedent Followed – Affirms and refines prior Section 12A jurisprudence (Patil Automation; Yamini Manohar; Dhanbad Fuels)