Supreme Court on Urgency under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

The Supreme Court clarified the interpretation of the expression “contemplates any urgent interim relief” under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. It held that in cases of continuing infringement of intellectual property rights, urgency is inherent in the nature of the wrong. Therefore, mere delay in filing a suit does not negate urgency when the infringement continues. The Court ruled that Section 12A’s mediation requirement cannot bar an IP owner from seeking urgent relief against ongoing infringement.

The judgments of the Single Judge and Division Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court rejecting the plaint for non-compliance with Section 12A were set aside, and the suit was restored for hearing on merits.

1. The appellant, Novenco Building and Industry A/S, a Danish company, manufactures patented industrial fans marketed as “Novenco ZerAx.”
2. A dealership agreement was executed in 2017 with respondent Xero Energy Engineering Solutions Pvt. Ltd. for marketing the fans in India.
3. Xero’s Director later incorporated Aeronaut Fans Industry Pvt. Ltd. (Respondent No. 2) to manufacture and sell identical fans using deceptively similar designs and marks.
4. After termination of the dealership and repeated cease-and-desist notices, Novenco filed a commercial suit in June 2024 for patent and design infringement, seeking interim injunction and exemption from pre-institution mediation under Section 12A.
5. The High Court rejected the plaint, holding there was no real urgency, as the company delayed six months after discovering the infringement. The Division Bench upheld this view.

1. Purpose of Section 12A: Pre-institution mediation is mandatory unless the suit contemplates urgent interim relief.
2. Legal Principle: The Court reiterated that the test for urgency must be applied from the plaintiff’s standpoint, not on the merits of the relief sought.
3. Intellectual Property Context:

Each act of infringement constitutes a continuing wrong and gives rise to a recurring cause of action.

Delay in filing cannot legalize infringement or negate urgency when the violation persists.

Public interest in preventing consumer deception and maintaining market integrity reinforces urgency.

The Court noted that compelling the plaintiff to undergo mediation while infringement continues would leave the rights holder remediless and contradict legislative intent.

The High Court erred in treating delay as fatal without considering the continuing nature of the infringement.

Section 12A Compliance:

Mandatory, except when the plaint and annexed documents show a genuine need for urgent interim relief.

Urgency Assessment:

Courts must look for immediacy of peril, risk of irreparable harm, or ongoing injury from the plaintiff’s perspective.

Delay Irrelevant in Ongoing Infringement:

Continuous intellectual property infringement inherently warrants urgent relief.

No Camouflage Test:

Courts can disregard frivolous or proforma claims of urgency meant to bypass mediation.

Public Interest:

Preventing consumer deception and preserving market confidence adds urgency in IP disputes.

1. Urgency in IP infringement arises from continuing harm, not from delay in filing.
2. Pre-institution mediation cannot bar immediate judicial protection where infringement persists.
3. The judgments of the Himachal Pradesh High Court (dated 28.08.2024 and 13.11.2024) were quashed and set aside.
4. Commercial Suit No. 13 of 2024 was restored for adjudication on merits.

1. Section 12A, Commercial Courts Act, 2015 – Pre-institution mediation and exemption for urgent interim relief.
2. Order VII Rule 11, CPC – Rejection of plaint.
3. Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2, CPC – Grant of temporary injunctions.

1. Patil Automation Pvt. Ltd. v. Rakheja Engineers Pvt. Ltd., (2022) 10 SCC 1
2. Yamini Manohar v. T.K.D. Keerthi, (2024) 5 SCC 815
3. Dhanbad Fuels Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, (2025) SCC OnLine SC 1129
4. Midas Hygiene Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Sudhir Bhatia, (2004) 3 SCC 90

Citation: 2025 INSC 1256

Case: Novenco Building and Industry A/S v. Xero Energy Engineering Solutions Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Coram: Justice Sanjay Kumar & Justice Alok Aradhe

Civil Appeal No.: (Out of S.L.P. (C) No. 2753 of 2025)