Interpreting “Urgent Interim Relief” U/S 12A: The Supreme Court’s ruling in Novenco Building and Industry Vs. Xero Energy Engineering Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Novenco Building and Industry A/S vs. Xero Energy Engineering Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Anr. (2025 INSC 1256) represents a pivotal development interpreting the mandatory pre-institution mediation clause u/s 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (CC Act). The court addressed whether an intellectual property (IP) infringement suit that seeks urgent interim relief can bypass pre-institution mediation on the grounds of urgency.

The court observed that the mere delay in initiating proceedings does not legitimize infringement nor deprive the proprietor of the right to injunctive protection. In IP disputes, urgency is intrinsic since ongoing infringements lead to continuous harm and mislead consumers. The bench concluded that compelling mediation in such circumstances would deny effective redress and reward wrongful conduct. Consequently, the court restored the suit for adjudication on the merits. ^[1]

Citation-2025 INSC 1256 (Civil Appeal @SLP (C) No. 2753 of 2025)

Bench: Justice Alok Aradhe & Justice Sanjay Kumar

Date of Judgements: 27 Oct, 2025

FACTS OF THE CASE

A dealership agreement dated 1 Sept 2017 was executed between the appellant and Xero Energy Engineering Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad (respondent No.1), authorising sales and marketing across India. Later, the appellant discovered that Xero’s director in violation of the distribution agreement, incorporated Respondent No.2, Aeronaut Fans Industry Pvt. Ltd., for the manufacture and sale of identical fans under a deceptively similar name and appearance.^[2]

Following a technical inspection on 6 Feb 2024, the appellant confirmed the infringement and filled COMS No. 13 of 2024 before the High Court on 4 June 2024.

Alongside the plaint, it sought:

• An interim injunction under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 & 2 of the CPC, and
• An exemption from the mandatory pre-institution mediation under section 12A of the CC Act.

The respondent objected, asserting that the absence of genuine urgency rendered non-compliance with Section 12A fatal to the plaint.

Key Legal Issue

Whether a suit alleging continuing infringement of intellectual property rights, coupled with a prayer for an interim injunction, qualifies as a case that “contemplates urgent interim relief” under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.^[3]

Contention of Parties:

Plaintiff:

1. The single judge and Division Bench failed to apply the correct legal test for determining urgency u/s 12A.
2. The urgent interim relief was sought in good faith, not to evade the requirement of Pre-institution mediation.
3. The plaint and accompanying documents should be read together to assess the presence of genuine urgency.
4. Delay in filling the suit can’t defeat the right to seek an injunction in cases of continuing IP infringement. 
5. Each act of infringement causes fresh and ongoing injury, justifying immediate judicial intervention

Respondent:

1. The plaint did not disclose any urgency, and hence, exemption from Section 12A could not be granted.
2. The cease-and-desist notice was issued on 23.12.2022, but the suit was filed only in June 2024, showing a delay of nearly 1.5 years.
3. Even after obtaining the expert opinion, the appellant delayed filing by four months, negating urgency.
4. Mere filing of an application for interim relief does not establish urgency.

High Court Decision:

• The learned single bench of the High Court held in the second order that (i) there was a six-month delay in filing the suit from the date of the inspection report, (ii) the appellant had an adequate time for mediation, (iii) following the 12A rule of the CC, Act 2015, is mandatory, unless urgent interim relief is sought. Therefore, the High Court rejected the application on the above-mentioned ground.
• The Appellate Division Bench upheld the decision of the Single Judge, observing that the delay in instituting the suit indicated an absence of genuine urgency, thereby disentitling the plaintiff from seeking exemption from compliance with section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. 
• It is further held that the continuing nature of intellectual property infringement does not, by itself, override the statutory mediation. The bench also clarified that rejection of the plaint on the ground of non-compliance of Section 12A does not preclude the plaintiff from subsequently opting for mediation proceedings, provided the cause of action continues to subsist.  
• The High Court, while entertaining the SLP order dated 07.02.2025, directed the appointment of a Mediator; however, the mediation between the parties was unsuccessful.

SUPREME COURT OBSERVATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE FACTS:

On appeal, the Supreme Court of India, a bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Alok Aradhe, rendered its decision with in-depth analysis and reasoning.

Reiteration of the Legal Test from precedents 

The court commenced by reaffirming the legal principles laid down in its earlier rulings. It examined the scope of Section 12A of the act, which mandates pre-institution mediation for commercial disputes, except in cases where the suit contemplates urgent interim relief. Drawing from precedents such as Patil Automation Pvt. Ltd., Yamini Manohar, and Dhanbad fuels (P) Ltd., the court outlined the essential criteria for determining urgency u/s 12A are as follows:

1. Section 12A makes pre-institution mediation mandatory for commercial suits, and non-compliance generally renders the plaint defective.
2. Exemption applies only when the plaint and its documents clearly show genuine urgency requiring immediate interim relief.
3. Court must assess the pleadings and annexures to determine if urgency is real, such as imminent harm, loss of rights, or risk of ineffective relief due to delay.
4. Pro forma or artificial claim of urgency meant to avoid mediation will be disregarded. If the urgency appears bona fide from the plaintiff’s standpoint, the court may waive the mediation requirement.

ANALYSIS OF COURT:

1. The question of whether a suit “contemplates any urgent relief’’ must be assessed in light of the established criteria. The issue in this appeal is whether a suit alleging continuing infringement of Patent design rights, along with a prayer for injunction, can be considered urgent u/s 12A, despite some delay in its filing.
2. The dispute concerns ongoing infringement of intellectual property, where each act of manufacture or sale constitutes a fresh cause of action. The court quoted that “It is well settled in law that mere delay in bringing an action does not legalise an infringement and the same cannot defeat the right of the proprietor to seek injunctive relief against the dishonest user”.^[4] [5](para 22)
3. From the appellant’s standpoint, each day of continued infringement deepens the injury to its intellectual property and erodes its market standing. Hence, the urgency is inherent in the continuing nature of the wrong, not in the time elapsed since its discovery. The Court observed that applying mediation in such cases would unjustly protect the infringer and defeat the purpose of section 12A.
4. The court further emphasized that IP disputes extend beyond private interests; when imitation masquerades as innovation, it misleads consumers and corrupts market integrity. Thus, public interest in preventing deception and maintaining fair trade adds a further element of immediacy to such relief.
5. Accordingly, the appellant’s plea for injunction was held to be a genuine grievance arising from ongoing infringement, not a device to evade mediation. 
6. The High Court erred by focusing on the delay and assessing the merits of the relief instead of the urgency evident from the plaint. Section 12A was never intended to deny prompt judicial protection in cases of continuing intellectual property violations.

JUDGEMENT OF COURT

For the reasons stated above, the court held that in cases of continuing IP infringement, urgency must be viewed in light of the ongoing injury and the prevention of deception. Mere delay in filing does not negate urgency when the infringement persists.

Accordingly, the judgments of the single Judge (28.08.2024) and the division Bench (13.11.2024) are set aside, and Commercial Suit No. 13 of 2024 is restored to the High Court for adjudication on merits. The appeal is allowed

CONCLUSION

The Novenco judgement serves as a vital precedent in clarifying the interpretation of Section 12A of the Commercial Courts, reaffirming that urgency must be determined by the nature and continuity of the infringement, not merely by passage of time. By recognizing that every act of ongoing infringement constitutes a fresh cause of action, the Court struck a balance between the objective of promoting mediation and the need for timely judicial Intervention.

This ruling reinforces that procedural mandates cannot override substantive justice. In cases where infringement is ongoing, insisting on mediation would only prolong harm and undermine both private rights and public interest. The decision thus ensures that section 12A functions as a tool for efficiency, not an obstacle to justice, preserving the integrity of intellectual property protection and consumer trust in the marketplace.

Author: Priyanshi Tiwari, student of Prestige Institute of Management and Research, Gwalior

^[1] Novenco Building and Industry A/S v. Xero Energy Engineering Solutions Pvt. Ltd. & Anr

^[2] Novenco Building and Industry A/S Vs. Xero Energy Engineering Solutions Pvt. Ltd.. and Anr2025 INSC 1225 (Civil Appeal @SLP (C) No. 2753 of 2025Supreme_Court_Clarifies_Urgency_in_IP_Infringement_Suits_1761617980.pdf

^[3] Novenco Building and Industry A/S Vs. Xero Energy Engineering Solutions Pvt. Ltd.. and Anr2025 INSC 1225 (Civil Appeal @SLP (C) No. 2753 of 2025Supreme_Court_Clarifies_Urgency_in_IP_Infringement_Suits_1761617980.pdf

^[4] Midas hygiene Industries Private Ltd. & Anr. (supra)

^[5] Novenco Building and Industry A/S Vs. Xero Energy Engineering Solutions Pvt. Ltd.. and Anr2025 INSC 1225 (Civil Appeal @SLP (C) No. 2753 of 2025Supreme_Court_Clarifies_Urgency_iIP_Infringement_Suits_1761617980.pdf