Calcutta High Court Dismisses Copyright Suit Over Nine-Year Delay, Denies Urgent Relief and Mediation Exemption

In the copyright infringement dispute between Inreco Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. and Nav Records Pvt. Ltd., the Calcutta High Court recently ruled against the plaintiff’s request for urgent relief and exemption from mandatory pre-institution mediation. The case centered on allegations that Nav Records had uploaded sound recordings of Punjabi folk artist Jasdev Yamla on a third-party online platform without authorization.

According to the pleadings, Inreco Entertainment became aware of the alleged infringement as early as 2016. The plaintiff initiated correspondence with Nav Records in 2020, raising objections to the unauthorized use of the soundtracks. However, communication between the parties was sporadic and inconclusive, with a notable two-year hiatus before a legal notice was issued in December 2022.

The plaintiff filed the copyright infringement suit in 2025, nearly nine years after first learning of the alleged violation. In seeking urgent interim relief and exemption from the statutory mediation requirement under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, the plaintiff argued that ongoing infringement necessitated immediate judicial intervention.

The Court carefully examined the timeline and facts presented. It observed that while intellectual property disputes often involve continuing and recurring causes of action, the plaintiff’s prolonged delay and intermittent engagement with the defendant indicated a lack of genuine urgency. The Court emphasized that a party seeking urgent relief must act promptly and diligently to enforce its rights.

Highlighting the plaintiff’s “casual, sloppy and indolent approach,” the Court found the claim of urgency to be artificial and a tactical attempt to bypass the mandatory mediation process. The Court stated, “There are no grounds whatsoever to claim any urgent interim reliefs. The entire case for urgent interim reliefs has been falsely and artificially created.”

The judgment further cautioned against “clever and artful drafting” designed to create an illusion of urgency. It reiterated that exemptions from pre-institution mediation are reserved for truly urgent situations and cannot be granted lightly.

Consequently, the Court allowed the defendant’s application to revoke the exemption from mediation. It dismissed the plaintiff’s suit and vacated all interim orders previously granted.

- “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.”

- “Any party seeking urgent reliefs cannot afford to be negligent or indifferent towards enforcement of its rights.”

- “The commercial court has to examine the nature, subject matter, cause of action, and the relief sought.”

- “The facts and circumstances of the case have to be considered holistically from the viewpoint of the plaintiff.”

- “Plaint, documents, and facts should show and indicate the need for urgent relief.”

This ruling reinforces the judiciary’s commitment to procedural rigor in intellectual property litigation. It serves as a reminder that plaintiffs must pursue enforcement of their rights with due diligence and cannot rely on manufactured urgency to circumvent statutory mediation requirements.