Rahul Mishra’s Victory: How IPR Infringement Cases Redefine Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act

Introduction 

In the high-stakes world of commercial disputes, a plaintiff’s ability to seek an immediate and effective remedy is paramount. A crucial legal instrument for this purpose is the ex parte ad-interim injunction, a court order granted without hearing from the defendant to prevent immediate and irreparable harm. This is a powerful tool, particularly in cases of intellectual property infringement, where time is of the essence. For instance, imagine a fashion designer who discovers their unique, handcrafted creations are being illegally mass-produced and sold at a fraction of the price by an unknown entity on multiple online platforms. Delay could lead to a complete erosion of their brand value, market standing, and creative legacy. This very situation was at the heart of the case involving renowned fashion designer Rahul Mishra.

This pressing need for speed, however, must be carefully balanced with the legal framework established by the CC Act¹. A central pillar of this act is Section 12A, which mandates pre-institution mediation for commercial suits that do not “contemplate any urgent interim relief.” The intent is noble: to reduce judicial backlog and promote amicable settlements. But this creates a potential conflict. How can a court ensure a plaintiff’s plea for urgent relief is genuine and not just a clever way to bypass the mandatory mediation process? This very question was the central theme of the case involving renowned fashion designer Rahul Mishra.

Rahul Mishra and his co-plaintiffs filed a commercial suit² against multiple defendants, including a “John Doe” defendant (an unknown entity), alleging a clear and ongoing case of copyright infringement and passing off. They claimed that their “Tigress Artistic Work,” a distinctive design from their “Sunderbans” collection, was being blatantly copied and used to create cheap, mass-produced garments. They sought an immediate ex parte ad-interim injunction to halt these activities, arguing that the defendants’ actions were causing irreversible damage to their brand’s carefully cultivated reputation for luxury and exclusivity.

In their legal arguments, the plaintiffs notably relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Yamini Manohar vs T K D Keerthi³. This landmark ruling was crucial because it clarified the mandatory nature of Section 12A while simultaneously defining the court’s role in cases of urgent relief. The Court in Yamini Manohar held that while pre-institution mediation is a prerequisite, it’s not a straitjacket. It explicitly stated that the exception for suits contemplating urgent interim relief was not a carte blanche to bypass the mediation process.

The court, in its analysis of the Rahul Mishra case, had to grapple with the tension between the plaintiffs’ claim of urgency and the mandatory mediation under Section 12A. It recognized that if the plaintiff had an “absolute and unfettered right” to bypass mediation simply by making a claim of urgency, the legislative intent behind Section 12A would be defeated. The court’s role, therefore, was to be an active participant in this determination, not a passive bystander.

The court laid down a clear rationale, echoing the principles from Yamini Manohar: the term “contemplate” in Section 12A does not grant the plaintiff an automatic exemption. Instead, it confers a power upon the court to be “satisfied” that a suit truly warrants urgent relief. This requires a limited, but essential, judicial exercise. The court must holistically examine the plaint, the documents, and the underlying facts to determine if they genuinely show and indicate a need for immediate intervention. The prayer for urgent interim relief “should not be a disguise or mask” to get around the statutory mandate.

In the Rahul Mishra case, the court found the plaintiffs’ claims to be legitimate and well-founded. The detailed pleadings, which highlighted the continuous nature of the infringement across various online platforms, the threat to their brand integrity, and the alleged nexus among the defendants, all pointed to a situation that could not wait for the lengthy mediation process. The court’s observation that the defendants were offering “express/rapid delivery” and that the products were “low in stock” further supported the plaintiffs’ claim of mass production and quick replication, justifying the need for an immediate injunction.

Ultimately, the court granted the injunction, thereby upholding the sanctity of intellectual property rights and ensuring that a procedural mandate does not become an obstacle to justice. The ruling established a crucial precedent: while pre-institution mediation is mandatory, courts have a clear and defined role to assess the authenticity of a plaintiff’s claim for urgent relief. The decision strikes a perfect balance, preserving the legislative intent of Section 12A while empowering courts to act decisively when faced with genuine and immediate threats to a party’s rights. It serves as a strong message to potential infringers that they cannot use the mediation provision as a shield to continue their illegal activities.

Conclusion 

The Rahul Mishra judgment marks a significant step in clarifying the intersection of pre-institution mediation and urgent relief in commercial disputes. Its primary ramification is the empowerment of commercial courts to actively scrutinize a plaintiff’s plea for urgency. This decision moves the legal landscape away from a purely plaintiff-centric approach and solidifies the court’s role as a gatekeeper, ensuring that Section 12A of the CC Act is not rendered toothless. The ruling sets a clear precedent for intellectual property cases and other commercial disputes where the potential for immediate and irreversible harm is a genuine concern, providing a much-needed framework for judges to balance the goals of mediation with the demands of swift justice. .

This ruling’s future ramifications are multifold. For businesses, it provides greater certainty. Litigants now have a clearer understanding that a mere claim of urgency isn’t enough; it must be backed by a strong and evidential case. This could encourage plaintiffs to be more deliberate in their legal strategy and pleadings. On the other hand, it also serves as a warning to potential infringers that they cannot hide behind the mediation clause to prolong their illegal activities, as courts are now equipped to see through such tactics and grant injunctions promptly. This proactive judicial approach is likely to enhance the overall effectiveness of the Commercial Courts Act in achieving its core objectives of expeditious resolution and promoting the “ease of doing business” in India.

Despite this clarity, the judgment may give rise to a new legal question. While the court has established its right to scrutinize urgency, the extent of this scrutiny remains a nuanced area. How deep can a court delve into the merits of a case at the initial stage without effectively conducting a mini-trial and pre-judging the matter? This balancing act, between checking for a “disguise or mask” and avoiding a full-blown hearing on the merits, will be a key challenge for commercial courts. The precise line between a genuine “camouflage” and an ultimately unsuccessful but legitimate plea for urgent relief is a question that may require further judicial interpretation in future cases.

Citations

1. Commercial Courts Act, 2015
2. Rahul Mishra & Anr. Vs.Nishchaiy Sajdeh & Ors.CS(COMM) 786/2025
3. Yamini Manohar vs T K D Keerthi CRP-IPD No. 4 of 2023

Expositor(s): Adv. Anuja Pandit