Summary
In the case of Inreco Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v. Nav Records Pvt. Ltd., the plaintiff sought urgent relief for copyright infringement. The Calcutta High Court found no real urgency, citing an unexplained delay of nearly nine years. It held that statutory mediation could not be bypassed based on artificial urgency.
Background & Facts
Inreco Entertainment, the plaintiff, owns rights in sound recordings of Punjabi folk artist Jasdev Yamla and other associated works. In 2016, the plaintiff discovered that Nav Records had uploaded Yamla’s tracks on a third-party online platform without consent. Although it raised initial objections in 2020, correspondence between the parties extended sporadically until a legal notice was issued in December 2022. The plaintiff then filed a copyright infringement suit in 2025.
Issues for the Court
Whether the plaintiff’s suit qualified for exemption from the mandatory pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act on the basis of urgency.
Key Arguments
Plaintiff:
-
-
- There was no delay; communication with the defendants was ongoing.
- The cause of action was continuing and recurring.
- Urgent interim relief was necessary to prevent further infringement.
- Defendant’s refusal to participate in mediation post-suit showed bad faith.
-
Defendant:
-
-
- The plaintiff had known of the alleged infringement since 2016.
- There was a nearly nine-year delay before filing the suit.
- The correspondence ceased for two years, indicating lack of urgency.
- The claim of urgency was artificial and intended to avoid mediation.
-
Court’s Analysis
The Court reviewed the facts and timeline presented in the pleadings. It observed that the plaintiff had knowledge of the alleged infringement as early as 2016. After initiating correspondence in 2020, the plaintiff disengaged and did not pursue the matter seriously for two years. The suit was filed in 2025, nearly nine years after the plaintiff became aware of the infringement.
The Court noted that while IP disputes often involve recurring causes of action, the delay in approaching the Court suggested a lack of genuine urgency. A plaintiff seeking urgent relief is expected to act promptly and diligently. The delay, combined with the intermittent and inconclusive communication, showed that the plaintiff had slept over its rights.
The Court reiterated that exemption from pre-institution mediation is granted only in truly urgent situations. It warned against using clever drafting to simulate urgency and stressed that statutory mandates cannot be bypassed casually.
Findings & Order
The Court allowed the defendant’s application to revoke the exemption from pre-institution mediation under Section 12A. It held that the plaintiff’s claim of urgency was unsubstantiated. As a result, the suit was dismissed, and all interim orders were vacated.
Relevant Paragraphs
On the knowledge of infringement (para 12):
“In paragraph 12 of the plaint, it is categorically averred that the plaintiff came to learn that the defendant no. 1 had uploaded the soundtracks of the singer Jasdev Yamla on the online platform in 2016.”
On delay and urgency:
“The delay caused by the plaintiff is glaring and demonstrates the casual, sloppy and indolent approach in agitating its grievance. Any party seeking urgent reliefs cannot afford to be negligent or indifferent towards enforcement of its rights.”
On artificial urgency:
“There are no grounds whatsoever to claim any urgent interim reliefs. The entire case for urgent interim reliefs has been falsely and artificially created.”
On the legal standard (para 15):
“The Court should be careful of clever and artful drafting and creating illusion of an urgent relief.”
On the applicable test (para 8, Harish Verma v. Joginder Pal Singh):
“i) The commercial court has to examine the nature, subject matter, cause of action, and the relief sought.
ii) The facts and circumstances of the case have to be considered holistically from the viewpoint of the plaintiff.
iii) Plaint, documents, and facts should show and indicate the need for urgent relief.”
Disclaimer
This case note has been prepared based on the author’s understanding, views, and conclusions. Opinions of others may differ. Excerpts from the case have been extracted using a proprietary AI application.
Citation: Inreco Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v. M/S Nav Records Pvt. Ltd. (Nupur Audio) & Anr., IP-COM/5/2025, IA NO: GA/3/2023, GA/4/2023, decided on July 14, 2025, Calcutta High Court.