Orissa High Court Allows Copyright Suit To Proceed Without Pre-Institution Mediation In Continuing Infringement Case

The Orissa High Court has allowed a copyright infringement suit to go ahead without pre-institution mediation, brushing aside the defendant's argument that a year-long delay stripped the case of any real urgency.

In an order, delivered on March 31, 2026, Justice Sashikanta Mishra dismissed a revision petition filed by Ele Animations (P) Ltd., which had sought to have the suit rejected at the outset.

The dispute traces back to a suit filed by Satya Swagat Mohanty, who claims that his artistic depictions of 'Lord Jagannath' and a character called 'Jagan' have been infringed.

When he moved court, Mohanty sought an interim injunction to immediately restrain the alleged infringement and asked to be excused from going through pre-institution mediation under Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act, citing urgency.

The commercial court accepted that request and allowed the suit to proceed, turning down the defendant's plea to reject the plaint. That order was challenged in revision before the High Court.

The defendant's case hinged on the alleged delay. It argued that Section 12-A is mandatory and that the exception carved out for urgent relief cannot be invoked mechanically. According to it, the cause of action was traced back to May 2024, yet the suit was filed only in May 2025, a gap that, it said, undercut any real urgency.

The High Court was not persuaded.

Rejecting this contention, the High Court held that in cases involving continuing or recurring causes of action, particularly in intellectual property disputes, mere delay in instituting proceedings does not by itself extinguish the element of urgency.

“In the present case, the pleadings disclose that the alleged acts of infringement are continuing in nature. Therefore, at this stage, it cannot be conclusively held that the plea of urgency is illusory merely on account of delay in approaching the Court.,” the bench observed.

Looking at the plaint alongside the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court found that the plaintiff had in fact pressed for immediate injunctive relief to stop the alleged ongoing infringement. That, in its view, was enough to bring the suit within the exception to the requirement of pre-institution mediation.

The bench drew on Supreme Court precedent to underline that in cases of continuing infringement, every fresh act gives rise to a recurring cause of action. A delay in approaching the court, by itself, does not dilute a claim for interim protection if the alleged harm is still unfolding.

It also made it clear that urgency has to be judged at the point when the suit is filed, based on what the pleadings disclose. Subsequent developments, including delays in serving the injunction application, cannot be used to retrospectively question that urgency.

As for the argument that the exemption order was non-speaking, the Court did not accept it. It noted that the commercial court had considered the pleadings and arrived at a view that the matter involved urgent interim relief, a conclusion that could not be faulted in revision.

Reiterating the limited scope of its jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the High Court held that it would not interfere with the lower court's order unless it suffered from “jurisdictional error, perversity, or material irregularity.”

The court also cautioned that insisting on pre-institution mediation in cases of ongoing infringement could render a plaintiff remediless and allow an infringer to continue profiting under procedural cover.

Finding no such infirmity, the High Court dismissed the revision petition, affirming that the application for rejection of the plaint could not be sustained.