Case Note & Summary
The appeal arises from a judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, which affirmed an order of a Single Judge rejecting the plaint of the appellant for non-compliance with Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The appellant, Novenco Building and Industry A/S, a Danish company engaged in manufacturing industrial fans under the brand 'Novenco ZerAx', filed a commercial suit for infringement of its intellectual property rights against the respondents. The appellant had invested approximately 3.66 million euros in developing the brand and secured several patents and design registrations in India and abroad. A dealership agreement was executed on 01.09.2017 between the appellant and respondent No.1, Xero Energy Engineering Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad. The appellant alleged that after the termination of the dealership agreement, the respondents continued to use its intellectual property, leading to the filing of Commercial Suit No. 13 of 2024 before the Commercial Court at Shimla. The plaint sought urgent interim relief, including an injunction against the respondents. However, the appellant did not file a separate application for interim relief at the time of institution. The Single Judge rejected the plaint on the ground that the appellant had not complied with the mandatory requirement of pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Act. The Division Bench upheld this order. The Supreme Court granted leave and considered the interpretation of the expression 'contemplates any urgent interim relief' in Section 12A. The court noted that the provision exempts suits where urgent interim relief is contemplated from the requirement of pre-institution mediation. The court held that the expression includes cases where the plaint itself seeks urgent interim relief, and it is not necessary that a separate application for interim relief be filed at the time of institution. The court emphasized that intellectual property infringement suits inherently involve urgency due to the nature of rights and potential for irreparable harm. The court concluded that the requirement of pre-institution mediation under Section 12A is not mandatory when the suit contemplates urgent interim relief, as the provision itself provides an exception. The court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment, and directed the Commercial Court to proceed with the suit in accordance with law.
Headnote
A) Commercial Law - Pre-Institution Mediation - Section 12A Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - Urgent Interim Relief - Interpretation of 'contemplates any urgent interim relief' - The expression includes cases where the plaint itself seeks urgent interim relief, and it is not necessary that a separate application for interim relief be filed at the time of institution. The court held that the requirement of pre-institution mediation under Section 12A is not mandatory when the suit contemplates urgent interim relief, as the provision itself provides an exception. (Paras 2, 10-12) B) Intellectual Property Rights - Infringement Suit - Urgency - Section 12A Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - IP infringement suits inherently involve urgency due to the nature of rights and potential for irreparable harm. The court held that a suit for infringement of intellectual property rights, where the plaint seeks urgent interim relief, falls within the exception to mandatory pre-institution mediation under Section 12A. (Paras 4-6, 10-12) C) Commercial Law - Pre-Institution Mediation - Procedural Requirement - Section 12A Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - The provision is procedural and directory, not mandatory, for suits seeking urgent interim relief. The court held that the object of Section 12A is to encourage settlement, but it cannot override the need for urgent interim relief in appropriate cases. (Paras 8-12)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the expression 'contemplates any urgent interim relief' in Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 applies to a suit for infringement of intellectual property rights where the plaint itself seeks urgent interim relief, even if no separate application for interim relief is filed at the time of institution.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment of the Division Bench and the order of the Single Judge, and directed the Commercial Court to proceed with the suit in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of Commercial Courts Act
- 2015 is not mandatory when the suit contemplates any urgent interim relief
- interpretation of 'contemplates any urgent interim relief' includes cases where the plaint itself seeks urgent interim relief
- Section 12A is procedural and directory for suits seeking urgent interim relief
- IP infringement suits inherently involve urgency
