Urgent Interim Relief in IP Disputes and Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act 2015

Facts

The appellant, Novenco Building and Industry is a Danish company involved in manufacturing high-efficiency industrial fans sold under the brand Novenco ZerAx. Between 2007 and 2015, the company invested approximately 3.66 million euros to develop this technology, securing patents and design registrations in India and other countries. To market its products in India, it entered into a dealership agreement on 1 September 2017 with Xero Energy Engineering Solutions Pvt. Ltd., a company based in Hyderabad.

According to Novenco, Xero Energy’s Director later breached the agreement by forming a separate company named Aeronaut Fans Industry Pvt. Ltd. (respondent no. 2), which began producing and selling identical fans under a deceptively similar name and appearance. The appellant discovered this in July 2022 and sent several communications to Xero Energy in August and October of that year, but received no explanation. As a result, Novenco terminated the dealership on 14 October 2022 and issued a cease-and-desist notice on 23 December 2022 to Aeronaut Fans, who replied in February and March 2023.

In December 2023, Novenco’s technical expert inspected fans installed by Aeronaut Fans at Cavendish Industries and Hero MotoCorp in Uttarakhand and confirmed infringement. After obtaining patent and design certificates between March and May 2024, Novenco filed a commercial suit (COMS No. 13 of 2024) before the Himachal Pradesh High Court on 4 June 2024, alleging infringement and seeking an interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). It also sought exemption from pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

Procedural Background

The respondents filed applications under Order VII Rules 10 and 11 of the CPC for return and rejection of the plaint, claiming that the suit was not maintainable for non-compliance with Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, which requires mandatory pre-institution mediation unless the suit “contemplates any urgent interim relief.” They argued there was no real urgency because Novenco had waited over six months after the inspection before filing the suit.

The learned Single Judge of the High Court rejected the plea for return of the plaint but accepted the objection regarding non-compliance with Section 12A. The Judge noted that since Novenco had known of the alleged infringement since December 2022, there was ample time to initiate mediation. The court held that the plaintiff’s claim of urgency was unsubstantiated and that the request for exemption was a mere formality. Therefore, the plaint was rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC.

Novenco appealed, but the Division Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court affirmed the decision on 13 November 2024, holding that the plaintiff’s delay undermined any claim of urgency. It observed that continuous infringement of intellectual property rights did not automatically make a case urgent or exempt from mediation under Section 12A. However, it clarified that the rejection of the plaint would not bar the plaintiff from refiling the suit after following mediation.

Novenco then approached the Supreme Court of India. On 7 February 2025, while entertaining the Special Leave Petition, the Supreme Court directed Novenco to approach the mediation centre of the Himachal Pradesh High Court. Mediation was attempted but failed on 23 June 2025. The matter then returned to the Supreme Court for final adjudication.

Core Dispute

The central issue before the Supreme Court was the interpretation of the phrase “contemplates any urgent interim relief” in Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, particularly in the context of intellectual property rights (IPR) disputes. The Court had to decide whether Novenco’s suit—alleging ongoing infringement of its patents and designs and seeking injunction—could be considered as contemplating “urgent interim relief” and therefore exempt from the mandatory requirement of pre-institution mediation.

Arguments

For the Appellant (Novenco)

• Urgent interim relief was genuinely sought to stop continuing infringement.
• Each act of infringement constituted a fresh cause of action causing irreparable harm.
• Delay does not negate urgency when infringement persists.
• Relied on Midas Hygiene Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Sudhir Bhatia (2004) 3 SCC 90 and Yamini Manohar v. T.K.D. Keerthi (2024) 5 SCC 815.

For the Respondents (Xero Energy & Aeronaut Fans)

• No actual urgency as appellant knew since 2022 but filed in June 2024.
• Interim relief request does not automatically mean urgency.
• Section 12A compliance is mandatory unless genuine urgency exists.

Judicial Reasoning

The Supreme Court emphasized:

• Section 12A is mandatory (citing Patil Automation Pvt. Ltd. v. Rakheja Engineers Pvt. Ltd. (2022) 10 SCC 1)
• Urgency must be viewed from plaintiff’s perspective (citing Yamini Manohar and Dhanbad Fuels Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1129))
• IPR infringement is a continuing wrong; urgency lies in ongoing harm, not timing of discovery
• Public interest and consumer deception reinforce urgency
• Courts should not insist mediation when infringement continues

The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred by focusing on delay instead of ongoing harm.

Decision

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court orders and restored the suit for hearing on merits. The appeal was allowed.

Law Settled

1. Urgency in IP infringement cases may be inherent in continuing violation.
2. Urgency must be assessed from the plaintiff’s perspective.
3. Section 12A mediation exemption applies where genuine urgent relief is sought.
4. Delay alone does not negate urgency when infringement continues.
5. Public interest in preventing deception supports immediate intervention.

Case Details

Disclaimer

The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.

Written By

Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi