Allowed¶37

Inreco Entertainment Private Limited v. M/S. Nav Records Private Limited (Nupur Audio) and Anr.

Calcutta HC14 Jul 2025IP-COM/5/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

section 12A Commercial Courts Act 2015; revocation of dispensation; Pre-Institution Mediation and Settlement; urgent interim relief; artificial or camouflaged urgency; copyright infringement; sound recordings; Jasdev Yamla; Inreco Entertainment Pvt. Ltd.; Nav Records Pvt. Ltd. (Nupur Audio); delay in filing suit; sleeping over rights; recurring cause of action; right to sue; narrow scope of interference; Calcutta High Court IPR Division; IP-COM/5/2025; GA/3/2023; suit dismissed; interim orders vacated.

What did the court decide?

GA 3 of 2023 (revocation of dispensation under section 12A) allowed; order in terms of prayer (a) and (b) of the Master's Summons; consequentially C.S. No. 38 of 2023 dismissed; all interim orders vacated; all pending interlocutory applications disposed of. ¶37

Inreco Entertainment Private Limited Vs M/S. Nav Records Private Limited (Nupur Audio) and Anr. — Calcutta HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶37

Issue for consideration

Whether the dispensation granted to the plaintiff from Pre-Institution Mediation and Settlement under section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act 2015, founded on a plea of urgent interim relief, should be revoked on the ground that the claimed urgency is false or artificial. +1 more

¶23

Court's answer

The scope of interference to examine grounds for revocation of dispensation with the requirement of Pre-Institution Mediation and Settlement is narrow and circumscribed; though the requirement is mandatory, there is a limited window for suits seeking urgent interim reliefs, and a plaintiff cannot bypass the statutory mandate by artfully or artificially creating urgency.

¶24

Ratio / Principle

Since the plaintiff categorically averred in the plaint that it learnt of the alleged infringement in 2016, it is deemed aware of the infringement and ought to have promptly approached the Court rather than exchanging correspondence at long intervals; the delay is glaring and demonstrates a casual, sloppy and indolent approach in agitating its grievance.

¶34

Key takeaways

Waiting approximately 9 years before filing the suit per se disentitles the plaintiff to seek dispensation under section 12A of the Act; there is unexplained and inordinate delay, no grounds whatsoever to claim urgent interim reliefs, and the entire case for urgent interim reliefs has been falsely and artificially created.ratio¶35
Defendant no. 1's own delay in approaching the Court (coming only after disposal of the interlocutory application) is irrelevant to adjudicating whether dispensation under 12A was justifiably granted; the recurring nature of the cause of action does not excuse the plaintiff sleeping over its rights since 2016, and the relevant question is when the right to sue arose and what steps followed.ratio¶36

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Calcutta HC, Original Side (IPR Division), IP-COM/5/2025 (old CS/38/2023), 14 July 2025, Ravi Krishan Kapur, J: Defendant no. 1 (M/s. Nav Records Pvt. Ltd. (Nupur Audio)) applied (GA/3/2023) for revocation of the dispensation granted to plaintiff Inreco Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. from Pre-Institution Mediation and Settlement under s.12A of the Commercial Courts Act 2015 in its copyright-infringement suit over Jasdev Yamla sound recordings. Holding that the scope of interference in such matters is narrow but that urgency cannot be artfully manufactured, the Court found the plaintiff knew of the alleged uploading in 2016, exchanged desultory correspondence (including ignoring defendant's settlement mails of 30.03.2020, 01.04.2020 and 26.10.2020 until 28.03.2022), issued a cease-and-desist notice only on 02.12.2022 and sued roughly nine years after learning of the infringement; the delay per se disentitled it to dispensation and the entire case for urgent interim relief was falsely and artificially created. Defendant no. 1's own belated approach was held irrelevant. GA 3/2023 allowed in terms of prayers (a) and (b) of the Master's Summons; the suit was dismissed, interim orders vacated and pending IAs disposed of.

¶1

OIPD-6

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORIGINAL SIDE (Intellectual Property Rights Division)

¶3

IP-COM/5/2025 [OLD NO. CS/38/2023] IA NO: GA/3/2023, GA/4/2023

¶4

INRECO ENTERTAINMENT PRIVATE LIMITED VS

¶5

M/S. NAV RECORDS PRIVATE LIMITED (NUPUR AUDIO) AND ANR.

¶6

BEFORE:

¶7

The Hon'ble JUSTICE RAVI KRISHAN KAPUR Date : 14^th July, 2025.

¶8

Appearance: Mr. Shuvasish Sengupta, Adv. Mr. Shounak Mukhopadhyay, Adv. Ms. S. Datta, Adv. Ms. S.D. Chowdhury, Adv. …for petitioner.

¶9

Mr. Rohit Mukherji, Adv. Mr. Pankaj Agarwal, Adv. Ms. Champa Pal, Adv. ….for Defendant no. 1

¶10

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.

¶11

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.

¶12

¶13

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.

¶14

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.

¶15

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 10^th March, 2020 to 28 March, 2022 and ultimately culminating in the legal notice dated 2^nd December, 2022. In this background, the plaintiff had filed this instant suit primarily seeking the relief of infringement of copyright as against the defendants.

¶16

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

¶17

¶18

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.

¶19

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.

¶20

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

¶21

¶22

Settlement and the instant suit has been filed creating an artificial and distorted sense of urgency.

¶23

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.

¶24

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

¶25

¶26

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]

¶27

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:

¶28

“The Court should be careful of clever and artful drafting and creating illusion of an urgent relief.

¶29

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:

¶30

“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:

¶31

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.”

¶32

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

¶33

¶34

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.

¶35

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.

¶36

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.

¶37

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)

¶38

¶39

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.

¶40

(RAVI KRISHAN KAPUR, J.)

¶41

SK.

Inreco Entertainment Private Limited v. M/S. Nav Records Private Limited (Nupur Audio) and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Inreco Entertainment Private Limited v. M/S. Nav Records Private Limited (Nupur Audio) and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rina Kumari Keshari @ Rina Keshari Vs Pradip Kumar Agarwal

Samsul Nechha Begam @ Shamsul Nessa Begam and Ors. Vs Bhaggobati Sarkar and Ors.

Sri Anil Paul and Ors. Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Eli Lilly and Company (Sr NO./87/2019/TM/KOL) Vs Eisai R and D Management Co. Limited and Anr.

Jagat Singh Chopra and Anr. Vs Raj Singh Chopra

Otsuka Pharmaceuticals CO.LTD.(OA/15/2017/PT/KOL) Vs Controller General of Patents,Designs and Trademarks and Anr.