Calcutta High Court
Inreco Entertainment Private Limited vs M/S. Nav Records Private Limited (Nupur ... on 14 July, 2025
Author: Ravi Krishan Kapur
Bench: Ravi Krishan Kapur
OIPD-6
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
ORIGINAL SIDE
(Intellectual Property Rights Division)
IP-COM/5/2025
[OLD NO. CS/38/2023]
IA NO: GA/3/2023, GA/4/2023
INRECO ENTERTAINMENT PRIVATE LIMITED
VS
M/S. NAV RECORDS PRIVATE LIMITED (NUPUR AUDIO) AND ANR.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE RAVI KRISHAN KAPUR
Date : 14th July, 2025.
Appearance:
Mr. Shuvasish Sengupta, Adv.
Mr. Shounak Mukhopadhyay, Adv.
Ms. S. Datta, Adv.
Ms. S.D. Chowdhury, Adv.
...for petitioner.
Mr. Rohit Mukherji, Adv.
Mr. Pankaj Agarwal, Adv.
Ms. Champa Pal, Adv.
....for Defendant no. 1
The Court: This is an application seeking revocation of dispensation
granted to the plaintiff without exhausting the remedy of Pre-Institution
Mediation and Settlement under section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act
2015.
Briefly, the suit is for infringement of copyright. The plaintiff is engaged
in the manufacture, sale and publication of sound recordings including
cassette recordings, disc records, digital downloads, etc. The plaintiff is also the
owner of a large number of musical, literary and other related works and sound
recordings.
It is alleged on behalf of the plaintiff that in or about 1980, the plaintiff
had recorded 8 tracks of a Punjabi folk song artist and singer, "Jasdev Yamla".
The full particulars of the songs and the tracks are enumerated in the plaint.
Thereafter, it is alleged that the plaintiff by way of various different
agreements for valuable consideration with other lyricists, composers, has also
become the owner and author and producer of their respective sound
recordings including the underlying literary and musical works in the said
sound recordings and other works related thereto. The plaintiff alleges that by
virtue of a similar agreement, the plaintiff has become the sole owner of the
right, title and interest and copyright in all the works of the said Jasdev Yamla.
It is categorically averred in the plaint that in the year 2016, the plaintiff
came to learn that the defendant no.1 had uploaded the sound tracks of the
said Jasdev Yamla on the online platform of the defendant no. 2 without any
permission or license or consent from the plaintiff. Subsequently, the plaintiff
made inquiries which resulted in a spate of correspondence by and between the
plaintiff and the defendant no. 2, being exchanged commencing from 10th
March, 2020 to 28 March, 2022 and ultimately culminating in the legal notice
dated 2nd December, 2022. In this background, the plaintiff had filed this
instant suit primarily seeking the relief of infringement of copyright as against
the defendants.
The plaintiff had initially protested against the usage of such songs on 28
February 2020. Thereafter, the parties exchanged several correspondence
between 6 March to 21 March 2020. Subsequently, the plaintiff stopped
replying to the mails which were issued by the defendants for holding meetings
to amicably resolve their differences. In this context, the defendant no.1 had
issued repeated mails on 30 March 2020, 1 April 2020, 26 October 2020
respectively for an amicable settlement but the plaintiff chose not to respond.
Ultimately, it was only on 28 March 2022, after a span of almost two years that
the plaintiff replied, refusing to meet the defendants and demanding
documents which would support the claims of the defendant no. 1. In view of
the above, that there has been a gap of approximately two years during which
the plaintiff chose to consciously sleep over its rights. Subsequently, on 2
December 2022 the plaintiff issued notices upon the defendants to cease and
desist from using the impugned songs. This suit was ultimately filed in 2025.
On behalf of the plaintiff, it is submitted that in view of the
correspondence exchanged between the parties from time to time, there has
been no distortion of their claim for urgent interim reliefs. This is a continuous
and recurring cause of action which gives a right to the plaintiff to seek urgent
interim reliefs. The correspondence exchanged between the parties
demonstrate that the plaintiff has been diligently following up with the
defendants in order to ascertain the exact rights of the parties. There has been
no delay whatsoever in the filing of this suit. It is also submitted on behalf of
the plaintiff that the conduct of the defendants post institution of the suit and
their refusal to appear at the interim stage is also fatal to any prayer for
revocation.
On behalf of the defendant it is submitted that, the prayers for urgent
interim reliefs are false, camouflaged and distorted. There are no grounds made
out whatsoever for dispensing with the mandatory requirement of Mediation or
Settlement and the instant suit has been filed creating an artificial and
distorted sense of urgency.
The principle grievance of the defendant no. 1 in this application is that
there is no urgency as contemplated under Section 12A of the Act in the filing
of this suit. By its own averments, the plaintiff admittedly knew of the alleged
act of infringement as far back as in 2016. Thereafter, the plaintiff has
exchanged diverse correspondence with the defendant nos. 1 and 2, but the
principle grievance of the plaintiff continues to be one of infringement of
copyright. In such circumstances, the plaintiff' has waited for more than close
to a decade before institution of this suit.
In view of the repeated pronouncements of the different High Courts as
well as the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is now an admitted position that the scope of
interference to examine the grounds for revocation of dispensation with the
requirement of Pre-Institution Mediation and Settlement are narrow and
circumscribed. Though the requirement of Pre-Institution, Mediation and
Settlement is mandatory, there is a limited window for filing of suit in cases
where the plaintiff seeks urgent interim reliefs. A plaintiff is obliged to ensure
that the request for urgent interim reliefs as pleaded in the plaint is not tainted,
nor artificial, nor based on deception or falsehood. There can be no straight
jacket formula in such cases. Each case depends on its own facts. It is true
that in intellectual property matters, ordinarily, urgent interim reliefs are
inbuilt by there very nature. However, the plaintiff cannot claim an absolute
right to bypass the statutory mandate of Pre-Litigation Mediation by artfully or
artificially creating urgency. Moreso, when the falsity of urgency is apparent, a
Court should not permit the mandatory requirement to be bypassed in a casual
manner. [Unique Entrepreneurs and Finance Ltd. vs. Really Agritech Pvt. Ltd.
and Anr. (2025) OnLine Cal 2426 and Unreported decision of this Court in
Pankaj Plastic Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. Anita Anu in IP-COM 28/2024 dated 6
May 2025]
In an unreported judgment of this Court in Asa International India
Microfinance Ltd. vs. Northern ARC Capital Ltd. & Anr. passed in FMAT 3 of
2025 dated January 17, 2025, it has been held as follows:
"The Court should be careful of clever and artful drafting and creating
illusion of an urgent relief.
15. In Harish Verma v Joginder Pal Singh, 2024 SCC OnLine Del
2770, the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court relying on the case of
Yamini Manohar (supra) has laid down the following tests and standards
to be followed in this regard in paragraph 8 as follows:
"8. The Supreme Court established standards against which the
plaint and the application for urgent relief have to be tested
amongst others, on the following grounds:
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."
The crucial aspect which needs to be acknowledged is the knowledge of
when the plaintiff came to learn of the alleged infringement. 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. In such circumstances, the plaintiff is deemed to
have been aware of the alleged infringement and ought to have promptly
approached the Court rather than exchanging correspondence in such long
intervals. 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.
Post 2016, there is nothing to suggest that the plaintiff has been alert or
vigilant. The fact that the plaintiff had waited for approximately 9 years before
filing of the suit per se disentitles the plaintiff to seek dispensation under
section 12A of the Act. There is an unexplained and inordinate delay in the
filing of this suit which is inapposite to any prayer for urgency as contemplated
under section 12A of the Act. There are no grounds whatsoever to claim any
urgent interim reliefs. The entire case for urgent interim reliefs has been falsely
and artificially created.
There is also no merit in the contention raised on behalf of the plaintiff
that the defendant has delayed in approaching this Court. The fact that the
defendant chose not to appear either at the interim stage or at the stage after
affidavits and has come after the interlocutory application has been disposed of,
is irrelevant for the purposes of adjudicating as to whether dispensation under
12A of the Act was justifiably granted or not. It is also true that the cause of
action in such matters is recurring in nature but that does not warrant the
plaintiff sleeping over its rights since 2016. The question which needs to be
addressed is when did the right to sue arise and the consequential steps which
have taken by the plaintiff.
In view of the above, GA 3 of 2023 seeking revocation of dispensation
under section 12A stands allowed. There shall be an order in terms of prayer (a)
and (b) of the Master's Summons. Consequentially, C.S No. 38 of 2023 stands
dismissed. All interim orders stand vacated. All the pending interlocutory
applications stand disposed of.
(RAVI KRISHAN KAPUR, J.)
SK.
