Pyromaitre Thermal India Pvt. Ltd. VS Pyromaitre INC.

### Introduction

The case of M/s. Pyromaitre Thermal India Pvt. Ltd. v. Pyromaitre INC. and Others represents a significant judicial examination of the interplay between intellectual property rights enforcement and procedural mandates under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, particularly the requirement for pre-institution mediation. Decided by the Bombay High Court in its civil appellate jurisdiction, this revision application underscores the evolving jurisprudence on whether suits alleging infringement of intellectual property rights can bypass the mandatory pre-litigation mediation process when they contemplate urgent interim relief. At its core, the dispute revolves around allegations of unauthorized use of proprietary designs and technical know-how in the manufacturing of industrial ovens, highlighting the tensions between protecting commercial innovations and adhering to statutory mechanisms aimed at reducing court backlogs through alternative dispute resolution. The High Court's ruling not only reaffirms the mandatory nature of Section 12A of the Act but also illustrates a balanced approach to exemptions, emphasizing the continuing nature of infringement as a key factor in determining urgency. This decision builds upon Supreme Court precedents, offering clarity for litigants in commercial suits involving intellectual property, where delays in filing do not automatically negate the need for immediate judicial intervention. By dismissing the revision application, the Court ensures that genuine claims of ongoing harm are not thwarted by rigid procedural interpretations, thereby promoting both efficiency in commercial litigation and the safeguarding of proprietary rights in a globalized business environment.

### Factual Background

Pyromaitre INC., a Canadian company incorporated under the Canada Business Corporations Act, is engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling industrial ovens and complex heat transfer machinery. The company has built a strong reputation in the industry for its innovative products, including the P-4412E Oven. In pursuit of expanding its operations in India, Pyromaitre INC. entered into a Licence Agreement dated 5th December 2013 with M/s. Pyromaitre Thermal India Pvt. Ltd., the applicant herein and original defendant No. 3 in the underlying suit. This agreement allowed the Indian entity to manufacture, use, and sell Pyromaitre INC.'s products by leveraging the licensor's technical and engineering knowledge and know-how. However, alleging breaches by the defendants, Pyromaitre INC. terminated the agreement effective 30th October 2015. The termination stemmed from claims that the defendants, including Vishnu Gangadhar Godse (a director and proprietor linked to the Indian company and another entity, M/s. R.V. Industries), had violated the terms of the licence. In April 2019, Pyromaitre INC. discovered that a prospective purchaser was in possession of an industrial oven that appeared to be a replica of its P-4412E model. Further investigations revealed that this infringing oven was identical in design and make to Pyromaitre INC.'s product, allegedly manufactured using the plaintiff's proprietary information without authorization. This discovery prompted Pyromaitre INC. to assert that the defendants were continuously infringing its intellectual property rights, causing ongoing harm to its business reputation, goodwill, and market position. The plaintiff contended that each instance of manufacture and sale constituted a fresh infringement, providing a continuing cause of action. Consequently, in March 2022, Pyromaitre INC. instituted Commercial Suit No. 14 of 2022 before the District Judge, Pune, seeking injunctions to restrain the defendants from further infringement, along with damages and other consequential reliefs. The plaint was signed and verified by Arunadevi Vinay Nayarankar as the authorized representative of Pyromaitre INC., and it explicitly pleaded the need for urgent interim relief to prevent irreparable injury from the persistent unauthorized use of its designs.

### Procedural Background

The procedural journey of this case is marked by multiple rounds of litigation, reflecting the defendants' persistent efforts to challenge the suit at the threshold. Initially, in Commercial Suit No. 14 of 2022, the applicant (original defendant No. 3) filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking rejection of the plaint on grounds including non-compliance with Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (requiring pre-institution mediation), absence of a cause of action, and lack of authorization for the signatory of the plaint. On 23rd October 2023, the District Judge, Pune, rejected this application (Exhibit-28), holding that the suit contemplated urgent interim relief and was thus exempt from mediation. Aggrieved, the applicant filed Civil Revision Application No. 702 of 2023 before the Bombay High Court, which, on 4th March 2025, partly allowed the revision and remitted the matter back to the Commercial Court for a fresh decision solely on the issue of whether the suit was barred by Section 12A for not resorting to pre-institution mediation. The High Court in this earlier order also addressed other grounds, finding that the plaint disclosed a cause of action and that any defect in signing/verification was curable, not warranting rejection. The applicant then escalated the matter to the Supreme Court via Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 13532 of 2025. On 23rd May 2025, the Supreme Court disposed of the SLP, directing the Commercial Court at Pune to reconsider the matter afresh in light of its recent judgment in M/s. Dhanbad Fuels Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and Another (2025 INSC 696), while keeping all contentions open. Upon remand, the District Judge, Pune, vide order dated 24th June 2025, again rejected the application, concluding that the suit contemplated urgent interim relief due to the infringement of intellectual property rights, disclosed a cause of action, and was not vitiated by authorization issues. Dissatisfied, the applicant invoked the Bombay High Court's revisional jurisdiction once more through Civil Revision Application No. 470 of 2025, arguing that the lower court had misapplied the principles on urgency and mediation. The High Court heard arguments from both sides, with the applicant emphasizing the delay between discovery of infringement in April 2019 and suit filing in March 2022 as evidence of no urgency, while the respondents highlighted the continuing nature of the infringement and Supreme Court precedents supporting exemption.

### Reasoning and Decision of Court

The Bombay High Court, per Justice N.J. Jamadar, meticulously analyzed the applicant's contentions against the backdrop of Supreme Court jurisprudence on Section 12A. The Court first critiqued the lower court's framing of the issue as whether the suit could be "protected" from rejection, deeming it an incorrect perspective that should instead focus on whether the plaint was liable for rejection due to non-compliance with mandatory mediation. Relying on Patil Automation Pvt. Ltd. v. Rakheja Engineers Pvt. Ltd. (2022) 10 SCC 1, the Court reaffirmed that Section 12A is mandatory, and suits violating it must face rejection under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, even suo motu. However, the exemption applies if the suit "contemplates any urgent interim relief." The Court examined the plaint holistically, noting averments in paragraphs 41 and 42 that asserted a continuing cause of action from ongoing infringement, despite the time lag. It rejected the applicant's argument that the delay negated urgency, emphasizing that intellectual property infringements often involve persistent injury and public interest elements, such as preventing market confusion and consumer deception. Drawing from Yamini Manohar v. T.K.D. Keerthi (2024) 5 SCC 815, the Court clarified that the test is subjective from the plaintiff's standpoint: whether the plaint and documents indicate a genuine need for urgent relief, not whether it is ultimately granted. The decision in Dhanbad Fuels (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1129) was invoked to stress that urgency is assessed based on the suit's nature, not merits, and must not be a camouflage to bypass mediation. Crucially, the Court applied the recent Supreme Court ruling in Novenco Building and Industry A/S v. Xero Energy Engineering Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (2025 SCC OnLine SC 2278), which mirrored the facts—ongoing infringement discovered years prior but suit filed later—holding that mere delay does not defeat urgency in continuing wrongs, as each act of infringement renews the cause. The High Court found the plaint's assertions of identical design replication and unauthorized use clearly demonstrated infringement, rendering the suit one contemplating urgent relief. Other grounds, like lack of cause of action and authorization defects, were dismissed as untenable, referencing prior observations that such issues are curable. Balancing the mandate of mediation with the need to protect rights, the Court concluded that a rigid construction would deprive parties of necessary relief. Thus, the impugned order was upheld, and the revision application was dismissed with costs, ensuring the suit proceeds on merits.

### Point of Law Settled in the Case

This case settles that in commercial suits alleging infringement of intellectual property rights, the exemption from pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, is available even where there is a delay between discovery of infringement and suit filing, provided the plaint demonstrates a continuing cause of action and genuine contemplation of urgent interim relief from the plaintiff's perspective. The Court clarifies that urgency is inherent in ongoing infringements, assessed holistically through the plaint's averments and documents, incorporating factors like irreparable harm, public interest in preventing deception, and the persistence of peril, rather than strict timelines or ultimate grant of relief. This prevents procedural formalities from rendering plaintiffs remediless against persistent wrongs, while guarding against abusive claims to evade mediation, aligning with Supreme Court directives to strike a balance between mandatory alternative dispute resolution and expeditious protection of proprietary rights.

**Case Detail**  

**Title:** Pyromaitre Thermal India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pyromaitre INC. & Ors.  

**Date of Order:** 20th January, 2026  

**Case Number:** Civil Revision Application No. 470 of 2025  

**Neutral Citation:** 2026 SCC OnLine Bom [To be assigned]  

**Name of Court:** High Court of Judicature at Bombay  

**Name of Hon'ble Judge:** N. J. Jamadar, J.  

Disclaimer: Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation  

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi  

**Suitable Titles:**  

1. Navigating Urgency in IP Infringement Suits: Bombay High Court's Take on Section 12A Exemption  

2. Continuing Infringement and Pre-Institution Mediation: Analysis of Pyromaitre Thermal v. Pyromaitre INC.  

3. Delay Does Not Defeat Urgency: Judicial Insights on Commercial Courts Act in Intellectual Property Disputes  

4. Balancing Mediation Mandates with IP Protection: A Deep Dive into Bombay High Court's 2026 Ruling  

5. Exemption from Pre-Litigation Mediation in Ongoing IP Violations: Key Lessons from Recent Jurisprudence  

**Suitable Tags:**  

Commercial Courts Act, Section 12A, Pre-Institution Mediation, Intellectual Property Infringement, Urgent Interim Relief, Continuing Cause of Action, Bombay High Court, Supreme Court Precedents, Patent and Design Rights, Licence Agreement Breach, Civil Revision Application, Order VII Rule 11 CPC  

**Headnote of Article:**  

In a commercial suit for infringement of intellectual property rights involving continuing wrongs, delay in filing does not negate the contemplation of urgent interim relief under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, exempting the suit from mandatory pre-institution mediation, as urgency is assessed from the plaintiff's standpoint considering ongoing harm and public interest. Revision application dismissed upholding rejection of plaint rejection plea.

======

**Brief Summary**  

Pyromaitre INC., a Canadian company specializing in industrial ovens, entered into a 2013 Licence Agreement with Pyromaitre Thermal India Pvt. Ltd. (defendant No.3) to manufacture and sell its products in India using proprietary technology. The agreement was terminated in 2015 due to alleged breaches. In April 2019, the plaintiff discovered an infringing replica of its P-4412E oven being sold, allegedly manufactured using its confidential designs and know-how by the defendants (including Vishnu Gangadhar Godse and related entities). Claiming continuing infringement, Pyromaitre INC. filed Commercial Suit No.14 of 2022 in March 2022 seeking injunction, damages, and other reliefs, without pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Defendant No.3 moved for plaint rejection under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on grounds of non-compliance with mediation, lack of cause of action, and improper verification. The Commercial Court initially rejected the application in 2023; in revision (CRA/702/2023), Bombay High Court remanded the matter in March 2025 for fresh consideration on Section 12A only. After Supreme Court direction in May 2025 to consider Dhanbad Fuels precedent, the Commercial Court again rejected the application in June 2025. In the present revision (CRA/470/2025), the Bombay High Court upheld the order, finding the suit contemplated urgent interim relief due to the continuing nature of IP infringement despite delay, and dismissed the application with costs.

**Points of Law Settled**  

- Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 is mandatory; non-compliance ordinarily requires rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, even suo motu, unless the suit contemplates urgent interim relief. (Para 16, relying on Patil Automation Pvt. Ltd. v. Rakheja Engineers Pvt. Ltd., (2022) 10 SCC 1)  

- In suits alleging continuing infringement of intellectual property rights, mere delay between discovery of infringement and filing of suit does not negate contemplation of urgent interim relief under Section 12A; urgency is inherent in the ongoing/persistent nature of the wrong, ongoing injury, irreparable harm, and public interest in preventing market confusion and consumer deception. (Paras 23–27, applying Novenco Building and Industry A/S v. Xero Energy Engineering Solutions Pvt. Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2278)  

- The test for “contemplates any urgent interim relief” is subjective from the plaintiff’s standpoint: the court must holistically examine the plaint, documents, and facts to assess genuine need for urgent intervention, not the ultimate grant of relief or merits of the case; the prayer must not be a camouflage to bypass mediation. (Paras 19–20, relying on Yamini Manohar v. T.K.D. Keerthi, (2024) 5 SCC 815 and Dhanbad Fuels Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1129)  

- Defects in signing/verification of plaint are curable and do not constitute grounds for rejection under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. (Para 28, referring to Union Bank of India v. Naresh Kumar, and earlier order in CRA/702/2023)

**Case Title**  

Pyromaitre Thermal India Pvt. Ltd. VS Pyromaitre INC.

**Order Date**  

20th January 2026  

**Case Number**  

Civil Revision Application No. 470 of 2025  

**Neutral Citation**  

2026 SCC OnLine Bom [to be assigned]  

**Name of Court**  

High Court of Judicature at Bombay  

**Name of Judge**  

N. J. Jamadar, J.  

Disclaimer: Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation  

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi

=====