Orissa High Court Holds Continuing Copyright Infringement Suit Exempt from Pre-Institution Mediation Despite Delay

Orissa High Court Holds Continuing Copyright Infringement Suit Exempt from Pre-Institution Mediation Despite Delay

Introduction

The Orissa High Court has held that a copyright infringement suit alleging continuing and recurring infringement can proceed without pre-institution mediation under Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act where urgent interim relief is sought. The Court emphasized that mere delay in filing the suit does not by itself negate urgency when the alleged infringement is ongoing, particularly in intellectual property disputes.

Factual Background

The dispute arose from a copyright infringement suit filed by Satya Swagat Mohanty, who claimed that his artistic depictions of Lord Jagannath and a character called “Jagan” had been infringed by Ele Animations (P) Ltd.

At the time of institution, the plaintiff sought an interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC to immediately restrain the alleged ongoing infringement and also requested exemption from the mandatory pre-institution mediation requirement under Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act, citing urgency. The Commercial Court accepted this plea and allowed the suit to proceed without mediation.

Procedural Background

Aggrieved by the Commercial Court’s refusal to reject the plaint, Ele Animations (P) Ltd. filed a revision petition before the Orissa High Court. The matter came up before Justice Sashikanta Mishra, who examined whether the lower court had correctly invoked the urgency exception to Section 12-A. The challenge centered on whether the plaintiff’s plea of urgent interim relief was genuine despite an alleged delay of about one year in approaching the court.

Issues

1. Whether a copyright infringement suit alleging continuing infringement can be exempted from pre-institution mediation under Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act.

2. Whether a one-year delay in filing the suit automatically destroys the element of urgency.

3. Whether the Commercial Court’s order exempting the suit from mediation was liable to interference in revision.

Contentions of Parties

The defendant, Ele Animations (P) Ltd., argued that Section 12-A is mandatory, and the urgency exception cannot be invoked mechanically. It was contended that since the cause of action allegedly arose in May 2024, but the suit was filed only in May 2025, the plaintiff’s claim of urgency was illusory.

The plaintiff, Satya Swagat Mohanty, maintained that the alleged infringement was continuing in nature, and every fresh unauthorized use constituted a recurring cause of action. It was therefore submitted that urgent injunctive relief remained necessary notwithstanding the time gap.

Reasoning and Analysis

The High Court rejected the defendant’s argument that delay alone defeats urgency. It held that in cases involving continuing or recurring infringement, especially intellectual property disputes, every fresh act of infringement gives rise to a fresh cause of action.

The Court observed that the pleadings, read along with the injunction application, clearly disclosed a demand for immediate restraint against ongoing infringement, which was sufficient to bring the suit within the exception to Section 12-A.

The Bench further clarified that urgency must be assessed as on the date of filing of the suit based on the pleadings then existing, and cannot be retrospectively undermined by subsequent procedural events such as delays in service of notice.

It also rejected the argument that the Commercial Court’s exemption order was non-speaking, holding that the lower court had indeed considered the pleadings and consciously concluded that urgent interim relief was involved. Reiterating the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC, the Court held that interference is warranted only where the subordinate court’s order suffers from jurisdictional error, perversity, or material irregularity, none of which were present in the case.

The High Court also cautioned that compelling pre-institution mediation in ongoing infringement cases could leave a plaintiff without effective immediate remedy and permit the alleged infringer to continue profiting during the mediation period.

Decision

The Orissa High Court held that the copyright suit filed by Satya Swagat Mohanty was maintainable without pre-institution mediation under Section 12-A, since the plaint disclosed continuing infringement and a live prayer for urgent interim injunction. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the revision petition filed by Ele Animations (P) Ltd. and affirmed the Commercial Court’s order refusing rejection of the plaint.

In this case the plaintiff was represented by Advocates Gyan S. Samantray, S. Routray, B.P. Samal, G. Dash, B.P. Sarangi and B.C. Pattnaik. Meanwhile the defendant was represented by Senior Advocate Pami Rath with Advocates S. Gumansingh, A. Shilpa Rani Achary and Depak Singhal.