Case Note & Summary
The plaintiff, Ultra Media and Entertainment Pvt. Ltd., filed a commercial suit alleging copyright infringement of the character 'Shaktimaan' by the defendants, Y-Not Films LLP and others, in the movie 'Vikram Vedha'. The movie was theatrically released on 30th September 2022 and on OTT platform on 12th May 2023. The plaintiff claimed it learned of the alleged infringement in May 2023 and sent a cease and desist notice on 2nd June 2023. After exchange of correspondence, the last letter was sent on 9th August 2023. However, the suit was filed only on 15th April 2024, nearly 11 months after the first cause of action arose. The plaintiff sought urgent ad-interim reliefs under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC. The defendants filed an interim application under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the plaintiff had not complied with the mandatory pre-institution mediation under Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The defendants argued that the plaintiff's delay in filing the suit demonstrated lack of genuine urgency, and the claim of continuing infringement was a subterfuge to avoid mediation. The plaintiff contended that the suit involved a continuing wrong and intellectual property rights, which should exempt it from Section 12-A. The court analyzed the factual timeline and held that the plaintiff's delay of 11 months, coupled with the fact that the movie had already been exploited theatrically and on OTT, indicated no genuine urgency. The court rejected the plaintiff's argument that intellectual property suits are exempt from Section 12-A, noting that the statute does not provide any such exemption. The court found that the plaintiff had cleverly worded the plaint to create an artificial sense of urgency, which is not permissible. Relying on the Supreme Court decisions in Patil Automation Pvt. Ltd. v. Rakheja Engineers Pvt. Ltd. and Yamini Manohar v. T.K.D. Keerthi, and the Delhi High Court decision in Dr. Reddy's Laboratories v. Smart Laboratories Ltd., the court held that Section 12-A is mandatory and must be complied with. The court allowed the defendants' application and rejected the plaint, relegating the parties to pre-institution mediation. The court also clarified that the rejection does not bar the plaintiff from filing a fresh suit after complying with Section 12-A.
Headnote
A) Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - Pre-Institution Mediation - Section 12-A - Mandatory Nature - The provision of pre-institution mediation under Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 is mandatory and must be complied with before instituting a commercial suit, unless the suit contemplates urgent interim relief. The court must examine whether the urgency pleaded is genuine or a subterfuge to bypass mediation. (Paras 1-2, 8-9, 12-13) B) Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - Urgent Interim Relief - Section 12-A - Delay as a Factor - In determining whether a suit contemplates urgent interim relief so as to exempt it from pre-institution mediation, the court must consider the delay in approaching the court, the conduct of the parties, and developments in the intervening period. A plaintiff who delays filing for 11 months after becoming aware of the alleged infringement cannot claim urgency. (Paras 3-7, 11) C) Intellectual Property Rights - Copyright Infringement - Section 12-A of Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - Applicability - Intellectual property rights suits are not exempt from the mandatory pre-institution mediation requirement under Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The court cannot read an exemption into the statute. (Paras 10-12) D) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Rejection of Plaint - Order VII Rule 11(d) - Non-Compliance with Mandatory Provision - A plaint can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) read with Section 151 CPC if the suit is barred by any law, including non-compliance with a mandatory provision like Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. (Paras 1-2, 14)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the plaint in a commercial suit seeking protection of intellectual property rights, where the plaintiff claims a continuing wrong, is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC for non-compliance with mandatory pre-institution mediation under Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, when the plaintiff delayed filing the suit for 11 months after becoming aware of the alleged infringement.
Final Decision
The court allowed the interim application filed by Defendant Nos.1 and 2 and rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC for non-compliance with Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The parties are relegated to pre-institution mediation. The rejection does not bar the plaintiff from filing a fresh suit after complying with Section 12-A.
Law Points
- Section 12-A of Commercial Courts Act
- 2015 is mandatory
- pre-institution mediation must be exhausted before filing suit unless urgent interim relief is sought
- urgency must be genuine and not self-created
- delay in approaching court is a relevant factor
- intellectual property suits are not exempt from Section 12-A
- court must examine conduct of parties and circumstances to determine if urgency exists.
