Commercial Courts Act 2015 | Pre-Litigation Mediation Under Section 12A Is Not Mandatory In Urgent IP Infringement Suits: Delhi High Court

"Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case, and in light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Yamini Manohar v. T.K.D. Keerthi and of a Division Bench of this court in Chandra Kishore Chaurasia vs. R A Perfumery Works (P) Ltd., the plaintiff is exempted from attempting pre-litigation mediation." Delhi High Court, in a recent ruling dated October 1, 2026, held that plaintiffs in intellectual property matters seeking urgent interim relief are exempted from the mandatory pre-litigation mediation requirements under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

Presiding over the matter, Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav emphasized that where the subject matter involves imminent apprehension of copyright infringement, the procedural requirement for mediation must yield to the necessity of protecting the plaintiff's exclusive rights.

The plaintiff, Digital18 Media Private Limited, approached the High Court seeking a permanent injunction against several rogue websites—Defendant Nos. 1 to 9—to restrain them from unauthorized streaming, hosting, or making available for download the plaintiff’s upcoming film, ‘Drishyam: The Conclusion’. The plaintiff contended that these websites operate as vehicles for systemic piracy, having previously infringed on other copyrighted content, and sought an urgent ex parte ad interim injunction ahead of the film’s scheduled release on October 2, 2026.

The court was primarily tasked with determining whether the plaintiff could be granted an exemption from the mandatory pre-litigation mediation process prescribed under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Additionally, the court examined whether the plaintiff had established a prima facie case for the grant of a "dynamic injunction" to protect its copyrighted content against identified rogue websites and potential unknown infringing platforms.

Addressing the threshold issue of mediation, the court reaffirmed the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Yamini Manohar v. T.K.D. Keerthi and the Division Bench ruling in Chandra Kishore Chaurasia vs. R A Perfumery Works (P) Ltd. The court concluded that when a suit contemplates urgent interim relief, the bar imposed by Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act does not act as an absolute impediment to the institution of a suit.

Exemption from Section 12A

 The court accepted the plaintiff's submission that the nature of the digital piracy business model poses an immediate and irreparable threat to the commercial value of the film. Consequently, the court permitted the exemption, noting that the urgency of the copyright protection outweighed the procedural mandate of mediation, which is intended for non-urgent disputes.

Granting of Dynamic Injunction

Upon reviewing the evidence of past infringement by the defendant websites, the court expressed satisfaction that the plaintiff had demonstrated a compelling case for interim protection. The court observed that the balance of convenience clearly rested with the plaintiff, as the injury caused by unauthorized digital distribution of the film would be irreparable and incapable of adequate quantification in monetary terms alone.

Court Grants Dynamic Relief

Accordingly, the court issued an ad interim ex parte injunction restraining the defendant websites from communicating, hosting, or streaming the film without authorization. Furthermore, the court directed the relevant authorities, including Domain Name Registrars and Internet Service Providers, to block or disable the domain names of the infringing entities upon receiving notice from the plaintiff.

Dynamic Injunction Mechanism

The court also established a procedural safeguard allowing the plaintiff to approach the concerned authorities directly should it discover other rogue websites indulging in similar piracy, thereby extending the scope of the injunction to cover unknown infringing platforms. This ensures that the plaintiff is not forced to file multiple fresh suits for every new domain that appears for the same purpose, effectively curbing the cycle of digital piracy.

Date of Decision: 01 October 2026