LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Novenco Building and Industry A/S vs. Xero Energy Engineering Solutions Private Ltd. & Anr.

Not available · 2025 INSC 1256Decided 27 Oct 2025
Not available
Justice Sanjay Kumar · Justice Alok Aradhe

Background

Novenco, a Danish manufacturer of industrial fans, had a dealership agreement with Xero Energy for marketing its patented "Novenco ZerAx" fans in India. Novenco alleged that Xero Energy's director secretly floated a new company, Aeronaut Fans, which manufactured and sold nearly identical fans infringing Novenco's patents and designs. After investigating and confirming the infringement through a technical expert, Novenco filed a commercial suit seeking an injunction, but sought exemption from the mandatory pre-institution mediation required by Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act on grounds of urgency. Both the Single Judge and Division Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court rejected the plaint, holding there was no genuine urgency given the delay between discovering the infringement and filing suit.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that the lower courts wrongly assessed "urgency" under Section 12A by scrutinizing the merits and the time lag, instead of examining whether the plaint and its supporting documents plausibly showed a need for urgent relief from the plaintiff's standpoint. It clarified that in cases of continuing intellectual property infringement, each ongoing act of infringement is a fresh wrong, so mere delay in filing suit does not by itself defeat urgency, especially since unchecked market confusion from counterfeit products harms both the rights-holder and the public. Finding Novenco's grievance genuine rather than a device to dodge mediation, the Court quashed the High Court's judgments and restored the commercial suit to be decided on its merits.

Lesson Learnt

When a business is fighting ongoing counterfeiting or patent infringement, it should not assume that some delay in filing suit will automatically disqualify it from seeking urgent court relief. Courts must look at whether the harm is continuing and genuinely urgent from the complainant's point of view, not just at how much time has passed.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Arbitration & Commercial Law

Arbitration & Commercial LawSupreme Court of India

Modern Asset v. KNK Constructions Private Limited

The Supreme Court held that an arbitration clause survives termination of the underlying contract (the "doctrine of separability") and that, at the Section 11 reference stage, courts only check for the prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement: deeper questions about the effect of the resolution plan are for the arbitrator. It confirmed that while the IBC's "clean slate" principle extinguishes creditors' claims against the insolvent company once a resolution plan is approved, it does not extinguish the claims the company itself (through its SRA) may have against its own debtors, since the Resolution Professional had not raised a counter-claim on KNK's behalf during the insolvency process. However, noting the inequity of letting KNK recover fresh dues on the same contract while Modern Asset's own claim had been wiped out to 0.72 %, and following its own recent precedent in Ujaas Energy, the Court modified the High Court's order: Modern Asset may raise its extinguished claim in the arbitration solely as a set-off against any amount it is found to owe KNK, but cannot use it to claim any fresh recovery.

Decided 8 Oct 2026Read case
Arbitration & Commercial LawDelhi High Court

S And P Infrastructure Developers (Pvt) Ltd vs. National Highways Authority of India

The Court held that the Joint Registrar's order overlooked an earlier ruling of this Court (M/s URC Construction (P) Ltd. v. Airports Authority of India) establishing that an instrument must be stamped at or before execution, with any delay attracting penalty, not just a top-up payment. Since the Joint Registrar's order was not in line with the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, the Court set it aside. The decree holder's counsel then sought to withdraw the petition with liberty to refile once the stamp duty issue was properly resolved, which the Court granted.

Decided 8 Oct 2026Read case
Arbitration & Commercial LawSupreme Court of India

Shubham Equipment Private Limited & Anr. v. Rothwell Water Company Limited & Ors.

The Supreme Court held that the Licence Agreement, the JVA, and the MoU each covered different subject matter (technology licensing, the joint venture company, and logistics services respectively), so the JVA and MoU's own arbitration clauses, providing for arbitration in Mumbai under Indian law, governed the disputes arising under them, not the Licence Agreement's Korea clause. Both agreements also contained "entire agreement" clauses showing they were meant to stand independently. The Court restricted itself to the limited inquiry required at the reference stage under Section 11(6-A), whether an arbitration agreement prima facie exists, and left deeper questions, including whether a non-signatory subsidiary (RBIPL) could be bound, to the arbitrator. It allowed the petitions and appointed a former Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court as the sole arbitrator.

Decided 8 Oct 2026Read case
Arbitration & Commercial LawDelhi High Court

M/S Redcliffe Lifetech Pvt Ltd vs. Connect and Heal Primary Care Pvt. Ltd.

Since the dispute was resolved, the petitioner's counsel sought leave to withdraw the petition rather than continue with it. The Court granted leave and dismissed the petition as withdrawn, along with any pending applications.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Arbitration & Commercial LawDelhi High Court

M/S Redcliffe Lifetech Pvt. Ltd. vs. Lifespan Wellness Private Limited

The Court reiterated that at the stage of appointing an arbitrator under Section 11, it need only check whether an arbitration agreement exists on its face, not decide the merits of the dispute. Finding the arbitration clause undisputed, the Court appointed a named advocate as sole arbitrator under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC), leaving all other objections (including arbitrability and jurisdiction) to be decided by the arbitrator.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Arbitration & Commercial LawDelhi High Court

M/S. Keshari Multi Functional Complex Pvt Ltd vs. Rail Land Development Authority

Because the awarded amount was already deposited pursuant to the earlier stay order, the Court held nothing further survived for consideration in the present enforcement petition. It disposed of the petition, giving the decree holder liberty to refile later after paying the proper stamp duty (and any penalty) under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case