H M ERANNA vs B N KARUNAKAR
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56711
WP No. 12650 of 2026
C/W WP No. 19383 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010273932026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 9 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
WRIT PETITION NO. 12650 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 19383 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)
IN WP No. 12650/2026
BETWEEN:
1. H M ERANNA,
S/O PANCHAKSHARAYA,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
R/A 'ANUSHREE', 8TH MAIN ROAD,
MAHALAKSHMI NAGAR
B.H. ROAD, TUMKUR 572 103
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI S. SRIRANGA LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI NARASIMHAN S., ADVOCATE)
Digitally
signed by
VINUTHA B S
Location:
High Court of
Karnataka
AND:
1. B N KARUNAKAR
S/O B S NIRANJAN
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
R/A VASUNDARA
AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENT ROAD
S.S. PURAM, TUMUKURU 572102
…RESPONDENT
(VIDE ORDER DATED 11.08.2026 NOTICE TO
RESPONDENT IS DISPENSED WITH)
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56711
WP No. 12650 of 2026
C/W WP No. 19383 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010273932026
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON I.A. NO.2 DATED 25.02.2026
PASSED BY THE HON'BLE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AT TUMAKURU AT ANNEXURE-B AND ETC.
IN WP NO. 19383/2026
BETWEEN:
1. H. M ERANNA
S/O PANCHAKSHARAYA,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
R/A ANUSHREE, 8TH MAIN ROAD,
MAHALAKSHMI NAGAR,
B.H. ROAD, TUMKUR - 572 103
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI S. SRIRANGA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI NARASIMHAN S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. B. N KARUNAKAR
S/O. B.S NIRANJAN,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
R/A VASUNDARA
AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENT ROAD,
S.S PURAM, TUMUKURU - 572 102
...RESPONDENT
(VIDE ORDER DATED 11.08.2026 NOTICE TO
RESPONDENT IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 15.09.2025 PASSED BY THE
HON'BLE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
AT TUMAKURU AT ANNEXURE A ETC.
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56711
WP No. 12650 of 2026
C/W WP No. 19383 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010273932026
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
ORAL ORDER
Since both petitions arise out of the orders passed in
Com. O.S. No.55/2025, they are heard together and disposed
of by this common order.
2. W.P. No. 19383/2026 is filed challenging the order dated
15.09.2025 passed in Com. O.S. No. 55/2025, whereby the
application filed under Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts
Act, 2015 (for short, “the Act”) was rejected and the suit itself
was also dismissed.
3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner
submits that Section 12-A of the Act mandates pre-institution
mediation before institution of a suit under the Act. However, it
is submitted that an exception is carved out in cases where the
suit contemplates urgent interim relief. It is contended that, in
the application filed under Section 12-A of the Act, the
petitioner had pleaded the urgency warranting consideration of
interim relief by the Commercial Court. The urgency pleaded
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56711
WP No. 12650 of 2026
C/W WP No. 19383 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010273932026
was that the defendant was attempting to alienate the
immovable properties and create third-party rights therein with
a view to defeating the claim in the suit. In that regard, an
application under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the CPC seeking
attachment of the properties was also filed.
3.1 Placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in M/s. Dhanbad Fuels Private Limited v. Union of
India and Another , 2025 INSC 696 , learned Senior Counsel
submits that the mandate under Section 12-A of the Act is
mandatory in nature, subject to the exception carved out in
respect of suits contemplating urgent interim relief. It is further
submitted that even if the Court declines to grant the urgent
interim relief sought, the suit cannot be rejected for non-
compliance with Section 12-A of the Act. Learned Senior
Counsel contends that the relevant consideration is whether the
prayer for urgent interim relief is bona fide and not whether
such relief is ultimately granted.
3.2 It is further submitted that the Commercial Court
proceeded on the premise that the requirement of pre-
institution mediation continues to apply even where the suit
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56711
WP No. 12650 of 2026
C/W WP No. 19383 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010273932026
contemplates urgent interim relief and that, for non-compliance
with the said requirement, the suit is liable to be rejected.
4. In view of the fact that the suit was rejected suo motu by
the Court even before issuance of notice to the respondent, the
petitioner sought dispensation of notice to the respondent.
Accordingly, this Court, by order dated 11.08.2026, dispensed
with the issuance of notice.
5. Heard the submissions of learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the petitioner and perused the impugned order.
6. The short issue that arises for consideration is as follows:
Whether the Commercial Court was justified in rejecting
the application under Section 12-A of the Act and,
consequently, the suit itself?
7. The Commercial Court arrived at the aforesaid conclusion
by placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in M/s. Dhanbad Fuels Private Limited (supra). The
Hon’ble Supreme Court, upon an elaborate consideration of the
earlier precedents, summarised its conclusions as follows:
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56711
WP No. 12650 of 2026
C/W WP No. 19383 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010273932026
"62. In light of the aforesaid discussion, we summarise
our findings as under:
a. The decision of this Court in Patil Automation
(supra) lays down the correct position of law as regards
Section 12A of the 2015 Act by holding it to be
mandatory in nature.
b. As held in paragraph 104 of the decision in Patil
Automation (supra), the declaration of the mandatory
nature of Section 12A of the 2015 Act relates back to
the date of the Amending Act.
c. As held in paragraph 113.1 of the decision in Patil
Automation (supra), any suit which is instituted under
the 2015 Act without complying with Section 12A is
liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11. However,
this declaration applies prospectively to suits instituted
on or after 20.08.2022.
d. A suit which contemplates an urgent interim relief
may be filed under the 2015 Act without first resorting
to mediation as prescribed under Section 12A of the
2015 Act.
e. Unlike Section 80(2) of the CPC, leave of the court is
not required to be obtained before filing a suit without
complying with Section 12A of the 2015 Act.
f. The test for “urgent interim relief” is if on an
examination of the nature and the subject-matter of
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56711
WP No. 12650 of 2026
C/W WP No. 19383 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010273932026
the suit and the cause of action, the prayer of urgent
interim relief by the plaintiff could be said to be
contemplable when the matter is seen from the
standpoint of the plaintiff.
g. Courts must also be wary of the fact that the urgent
interim relief must not be merely an unfounded excuse
by the plaintiff to bypass the mandatory requirement of
Section 12A of the 2015 Act.
h. Even if the urgent interim relief ultimately comes to
be denied, the suit of the plaintiff may be proceeded
with without compliance with Section 12A if the test for
“urgent interim relief” is satisfied notwithstanding the
actual outcome on merits.
i. Suits instituted without complying with Section 12A
of the 2015 Act prior to 20.08.2022 cannot be rejected
under Order VII Rule 11 on the ground of non-
compliance with Section 12A unless they fall within the
exceptions stipulated in paragraph 113.2 and 113.3 of
the decision in Patil Automation (supra).
j. In suits instituted without complying with Section
12A of the 2015 Act prior to 20.08.2022 which are
pending adjudication before the trial court, the court
shall keep the suit in abeyance and refer the parties to
time-bound mediation in accordance with Section 12A
of the 2015 Act if an objection is raised by the
defendant by filing an application under Order VII Rule
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56711
WP No. 12650 of 2026
C/W WP No. 19383 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010273932026
11, or in cases where any of the parties expresses an
intent to resolve the dispute by mediation."
8. Though the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that pre-
institution mediation under Section 12-A of the Act is
mandatory, the exception to the requirement of pre-institution
mediation in cases contemplating urgent interim relief
continues to operate. This position is evident from clause (d) of
the conclusions recorded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
8.1 The Hon’ble Supreme Court has further held that the
question of whether a suit contemplates urgent interim relief
must be examined with reference to the cause of action
pleaded and the prayer made for such relief. While considering
an application under Section 12-A of the Act, the Court must
exercise caution to ensure that the plea of urgency is not an
unfounded pretext to circumvent the mandatory requirement of
pre-institution mediation.
8.2 It has also been held that even if the urgent interim relief
sought is ultimately declined, the suit may nevertheless
proceed without compliance with Section 12-A of the Act,
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56711
WP No. 12650 of 2026
C/W WP No. 19383 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010273932026
provided the test for urgent interim relief is satisfied,
irrespective of the outcome of the prayer on merits.
9. In the present case, the Commercial Court has not
examined whether the pleadings and the prayer made by the
plaintiff disclose a bona fide requirement for urgent interim
relief. The Commercial Court has also not considered whether
the suit could proceed without compliance with Section 12-A of
the Act, irrespective of the ultimate outcome of the prayer for
interim relief.
10. If the Court finds that there are no bona fide grounds for
seeking urgent interim relief, the suit cannot be rejected for
non-compliance with Section 12-A of the Act merely because
such relief is ultimately declined. This follows from the law laid
down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s. Dhanbad Fuels
Private Limited (supra).
11. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the
Commercial Court proceeded on the premise that compliance
with Section 12-A of the Act is mandatory in all circumstances,
without examining the exception applicable to suits
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56711
WP No. 12650 of 2026
C/W WP No. 19383 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010273932026
contemplating urgent interim relief. The conclusion reached by
the Commercial Court is, therefore, founded on an incomplete
appreciation of the judgment relied upon and is contrary to the
law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
12. In view of the above, this Court is inclined to entertain
the writ petition. Accordingly, the following order:
O R D E R
I. W.P. No. 19383/2026 is allowed .
II. The order dated 15.09.2025 passed in Com. O.S. No.
55/2025 is hereby set aside .
III. The application filed under Section 12-A of the Commercial
Courts Act, 2015, is restored to the file of the Commercial
Court for fresh consideration in the light of the
observations made hereinabove and the law laid down by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s. Dhanbad Fuels
Private Limited (supra).
13. In view of the order dated 15.09.2025 having been set
aside, W.P. No. 12650/2026, challenging the order dated
25.02.2026 rejecting the refund of court fee, does not survive
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56711
WP No. 12650 of 2026
C/W WP No. 19383 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010273932026
for consideration. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as
having become infructuous.
Sd/-
(K. V. ARAVIND)
JUDGE
VP
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4