Oram Realty Private Limited vs Piramal Sunteck Realty Pvt. Ltd.
- Court
- Bombay High Court
2026:BHC-OS:12527
IA(L).340.2025.doc
HARSHADA H. SAWANT
(P.A.)
IN IN THE THE HIGH HIGH COURT COURT OF OF JUDICATURE JUDICATURE AT AT BOMBAY BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 340 OF 2025
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3449 OF 2025
IN
COMMERCIAL SUIT NO. 3 OF 2025
Piramal Sunteck Realty Pvt Ltd Applicant
.. (Orig. Defendant)
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN
Oram Realty Pvt Ltd .. Plaintiff
Versus
Piramal Sunteck Realty Pvt Ltd .. Defendant
INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 24548 OF 2024
IN
COMMERCIAL SUIT NO. 3 OF 2025
Oram Realty Pvt Ltd Applicant
.. (Orig. Plaintiff)
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN
Oram Realty Pvt Ltd .. Plaintiff
Versus
Piramal Sunteck Realty Pvt Ltd Defendant
.................
Mr. Tushar Gujjar a/w Mr. Deep Madnani i/b SL Partners,
Advocates for Plaintiff.
Mr. Chirag Mody a/w Mr. Hrushi Narvekar, Ms. Saloni Shah and
Mr. Anuj Savla i/b Trilegal, Advocates for Defendant.
...................
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : JUNE 8, 2026
JUDGMENT :
1.
Heard Mr. Gujjar, learned Advocate for Plaintiff and Mr.
Mody, learned Advocate for Defendant. Parties are referred to as
Plaintiff and Defendant for brevity.
2. Application (L) No. 340 Of 2025 is filed by Applicant / Orig.
1 of 21
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 18:24:32 :::
IA(L).340.2025.doc
Defendant seeking rejection of the Commercial Suit No. 3 of 2025 (for
short “said Suit”) under Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 (for short “CPC”) read with Section 12-A of the Commercial
Courts Act, 2015 (for short “said Act”). Plaintiff filed Affidavit-in-Reply
dated 19.09.2025 to oppose the present Application. On 09.10.2025
Defendant filed Affidavit-in-Rejoinder in present Application.
3.
Application No. 3449 Of 2025 in said Suit is filed by
Defendant on 30.06.2025 for Condonation of Delay in filing the
Written Statement dated 30.06.2025. On 19.09.2025 Plaintiff filed
Affidavit-in-Reply. On 09.10.2025 Defendant filed Affidavit-in-
Rejoinder.
4. Application (L) No. 24548 of 2024 is filed by Plaintiff on
03.08.2024 seeking urgent interim reliefs on the grounds therein as
follows:-
(i) To protect the subject matter of the Commercial
Suit No. 3 of 2025 in aid of final relief;
(ii) To secure Plaintiff’s monetary claim by saving
decretal amount in order to ensure decree is not
rendered infructuous or unenforceable at the
hands of Plaintiff.
5. Present Application (L) No. 340 Of 2025 in suit is filed by
Defendant on 30.06.2025. As per prayer clause (b) Defendant is
2 of 21
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 18:24:32 :::
IA(L).340.2025.doc
seeking rejection of suit under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC read along
with Section 12-A of said Act. Plaintiff has filed Affidavit-in-Reply
dated 19.09.2025 seeking dismissal of Application in order to procure
a stay on present proceedings. On 09.10.2025 Defendant filed
Affidavit-in-Rejoinder stating Plaintiff has failed to plead any genuine
urgency, also did not disclose any valid grounds to justify non-
compliance of Section 12-A of said Act. This Application under Order
VII Rule 11 of CPC is taken up for hearing and adjudication.
6.
Applicant / Plaintiff is a company registered under the
Companies Act, 1956 engaged into the business of civil construction,
RCC slab works, Labour Contractors, Construction machinery suppliers
etc. Defendant is a joint venture company between Piramal Group and
Sunteck Group engaged into the business of construction,
development, redevelopment of real estate projects.
7. Applicant / Plaintiff was engaged as Civil Contractor in
Defendant’s project known as “Signia Waterfront” situated at Airoli,
Navi Mumbai to carry out civil construction of residential building.
8.
Brief facts relevant for deciding the above application are as
follows:-
8.1. Commercial Suit No. 3 of 2025 is filed on 23.07.2024 by
Applicant / Plaintiff for recovery of outstanding sum of
Rs.12,74,23,049/- along with interest @18% p.a. calculated with effect
3 of 21
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 18:24:32 :::
IA(L).340.2025.doc
from the respective due dates till June 2024 with compensation of
Rs.5,83,98,749/- aggregating to a total claim of Rs.18,58,21,798/-
(Rupees Eighteen Crores Fifty Eight Lakhs Twenty One Thousand
Seven Hundred Ninety Eight Only). Plaintiff is seeking payment of the
aforesaid claim by Defendant arising out of work order dated
01.02.2016 read with amendments thereto and additional works
completed by Plaintiff in the said project.
8.2. Plaintiff also challenges ‘No Claim Certificate’ (for short
“NCC/NOC”) dated 10.02.2021 obtained by Defendant alongwith
various declarations and confirmations interpreting relinquishment of
entire claim as per work order thereby causing financial loss and
prejudice. According to Plaintiff same was obtained under duress and
coercion by using Defendant’s dominant position which led to
Plaintiff’s Director Mr. Manish Bhawani execute the purported NOC.
Plaintiff therefore seeks declaration of this NOC to be void and not
binding as it was constrained to sign the NOC because of the existing
facts and circumstances.
8.3. Letter of Intent dated 18.01.2016 was issued to Plaintiff by
Defendant followed by work order dated 01.02.2016 read with other
correspondences and revisions which constituted a binding contract
between parties describing scope of work of Plaintiff being viz; to
expend for labour, manage materials and carry out the RCC works,
4 of 21
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 18:24:32 :::
IA(L).340.2025.doc
deployment of machinery, footings and Slab work, obtain various
materials, gypsum work, construct various floors on the project and
undertake all type of civil works till completion of the project and
accordingly raise invoices later as and when work was completed.
Defendant’s responsibility was to procure all requisite sanctions,
approvals and appropriate licenses, IOD, CC, NOCs for commencement
and completion of construction/development.
8.4. Defendant requested Plaintiff to carry out additional works
in pursuance of the work order and to procure goods and material
required for the project, for which Defendant agreed to clear payment
as per invoices raised on completion of work. According to Plaintiff, as
per said work order parties agreed to a contract price of Rs.
30,41,47,504/- for civil works to be done by Plaintiff - Item Rate
Contractor was appointed by Defendant.
8.5. The said work order was revised through amendments
several times for purpose of changes in work and accordingly revised
value of the pending works was calculated.
9.
Mr. Mody, learned Advocate for Defendant would submit
that the purported outstanding amount claimed by Plaintiff itself is
false and exorbitant without any material and documents in support
thereof. He would submit that Plaintiff relied upon a fabricated and
false NOC further stating that Defendant would crave leave to rely on
5 of 21
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 18:24:32 :::
IA(L).340.2025.doc
the true and correct copy of NOC as and when required. He would
submit that Defendant denies all averments made by Plaintiff in said
suit which has been filed maliciously without following due process of
law.
9.1.
He would submit in para 2(a) of Interim Application Plaintiff
has set out various reasons for supporting its claim / entitlement as
urgent interim reliefs. He would submit that Plaintiff has filed Interim
Application (L) No. 24548 of 2024 only on 26.07.2024 after seven
months from the last correspondence dated 12.09.2023 addressed by
him thus showing no urgency. He would submit that Plaintiff also did
not raise any such contention in his Advocate's letters dated
07.07.2023 and 12.09.2023 regarding the NOC signed by Plaintiff’s
Director under coercion, which prima facie shows that Plaintiff's case
of coercion is an afterthought, false and bogus.
9.2. He would submit that Plaintiff’s contention that suit was filed
in hurry is false in view of delay in filing the suit from the time of
dispute arose between the parties. He would submit that it can be seen
from the timelines stated in the Suit Plaint that there was no actual
grave urgency for filing the suit alongwith Interim Application No. (L)
24548 of 2024 wherein statements made are not substantiated.
9.3. He would submit that suit is of commercial nature and hence
Plaintiff should have mandatorily followed the procedure under the
6 of 21
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 18:24:32 :::
IA(L).340.2025.doc
said Act. He would submit that Section 12-A of the said Act states as
follows:-
12 (1) A suit, which does not contemplate any urgent interim relief
under this Act, shall not be instituted unless the plaintiff exhausts
the remedy of pre-institution mediation in accordance with such
manner and procedure as may be prescribed by rules made by the
Central Government.
9.4. He would submit that on perusal of the above clause, to
begin with, said suit did not contemplate any urgency and secondly, it
is a simplicitor suit for recovery of monies. He would vehemently
submit that despite filing of present suit along with Interim
Application, Plaintiff never made any attempt to get the same listed or
ever heard or press for interim reliefs. He would submit that hence
Plaintiff has miserably attempted to forgo the mandatory provision of
Section 12-A. He would submit that Plaintiff could not have instituted
present suit without going for pre-institutional mediation and also
failed to give any justifiable reasons for the same. He would submit
that for the aforesaid reasons the suit is liable to be rejected under
Order VII Rule 11 of CPC and thereby Plaintiff is disentitled to any
relief.
9.5. He would submit that plaintiff's failure to make out any
urgency can be seen even on plain reading of the Suit Plaint and from
its own conduct. He would submit that it has been held that prayer for
urgent interim relief should not be a disguise or mask to wriggle out of
7 of 21
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 18:24:32 :::
IA(L).340.2025.doc
and get over Section 12-A of said Act which is prima facie applicable in
present case.
9.6.
He would submit that the claim amount set out in the suit is
incorrect, extravagant and without an iota of substantial evidence. He
would submit that computation of claim has been inflated in such a
way so as to bring the present suit within the jurisdiction of this Court
and hence for that reason suit filed without jurisdiction is liable to be
rejected on this ground also.
9.7. He would submit that Suit Plaint neither discloses any urgent
interim relief for the cause of action pleaded which is a mandatory
requirement under the said act nor there are reasons for justification of
the purported outstanding amount. He would submit that therefore
such suit seeking a frivolous claim amount is liable to be rejected under
the aforesaid provisions of CPC and the said Act.
10. PER CONTRA, Mr. Gujjar, learned Advocate for Plaintiff in
reply has drawn my attention to the Affidavit-in-Reply dated
19.09.2025 filed by Mr. Manish Bhawani on behalf of Plaintiff and has
made following submissions:-
10.1. He would submit that facts reiterated in the Suit Plaint are
contrary and inconsistent with the contentions pleaded in present
Interim Application. He would submit that captioned suit is filed by
Plaintiff for recovery of claims payable by Defendant arising out of
8 of 21
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 18:24:32 :::
IA(L).340.2025.doc
work order dated 01.02.2016. He would submit that present Interim
Application is filed by Defendant merely to delay the suit proceedings
and wriggle out of its contractual obligation to pay the outstanding
dues.
10.2.
He would submit that requirement of mediation under
Section 12-A of the said Act cannot be treated as a ground for rejection
of the suit plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, because grounds
under this provision are specific and limited, which do not fall within
its purview and hence, it would amount to premature determination of
disputed facts. He would submit that Section 12-A is not strictly
mandatory and it is for the court to decide on the facts and
circumstances of each case. He would submit that Section 12-A itself
carves out an exception in cases involving urgency. He would submit
that factual evidence must be taken into consideration while deciding
urgency and even if urgency is not established, that cannot become a
ground to reject a plaint and/or conclude that provisions of the said
Act are bypassed.
10.3. He would submit that suit containing relief for cancellation
of documents wherein allegations of fraud and misrepresentation are
invoked, are disputes not amenable to settlement through mediation.
He would submit that compelling Plaintiff for mediation would be
beyond purpose and thereby rejecting his plaint under CPC provisions
9 of 21
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 18:24:32 :::
IA(L).340.2025.doc
would lead to miscarriage of justice. He would submit that averments
made in Suit Plaint and Interim Application demonstrates prima facie
case for urgency and must be considered while adjudicating the
exception under Section 12-A of said Act. He would submit that subject
matter of suit ought to be protected in aid of final relief sought by
Plaintiff, since Defendant is now selling the flats and units in the said
project in full swing which were constructed and completed in and
around 30.04.2022 by Plaintiff under the work order. He would submit
that Defendant is enjoying benefits arising out of sale without clearing
the outstandings due to the Plaintiff.
10.4.
He would submit that if all flats are sold to third parties
and / or the project is handed over to the Society / Association of
Purchasers, Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant will be rendered
infructuous and irrevocable, thus necessitating interim reliefs. He
would submit that Defendant attempted to misuse the NOC against
Plaintiff to clandestinely defeat its claim. He would submit that
Defendant by not responding to Plaintiff’s calls and messages has
buttressed Plaintiff’s apprehensions of fraud against him.
10.5. He would submit that Defendant never disputed the dues
rather acknowledged the same by oral assurances remaining
unfulfilled, however its conduct / responses were evasive and had no
real statable defence to Plaintiff’s claim. He would submit that
10 of 21
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 18:24:32 :::
IA(L).340.2025.doc
Defendant’s repeated false assurances lacked intent to pay its dues. He
would submit that Defendant’s evasive conduct as summarized under
clause 15(c)(iii) put Plaintiff in a helpless situation when it was in dire
need of funds. He would submit that therefore it would be just and
necessary in interest of justice to exempt the need for Institutional
Mediation and grant interim relief to Plaintiff considering merits of its
claim and Defendant’s conduct. He would submit that Defendant is
siphoning off funds and constructed units in the project to third parties
/ purchasers in order to defeat Plaintiff’s claim and render any future
court orders of payment to be ineffective which is evident from his
evasive conduct and non-responsive nature to repeated correspondence
from the Plaintiff.
10.6.
He would submit that interim relief in terms of prayer clause
i(a) to i(j) of Interim Application (L) No. 24548 of 2024 be considered
in order to secure the claim amount and safeguard rights of Plaintiff as
mentioned in Suit Plaint by exempting Mediation in view of urgency
pleaded by Plaintiff. He would submit that obligation of pre-institution
mediation was fulfilled by way of settlement talks which ensued
between parties during the period after issuance of first legal notice
dated 07.07.2023; and prior to filing of suit dated 26.07.2024. He
would submit that Defendant initiated settlement process via email
dated 08.07.2025 and both parties actively negotiated for possible
resolution by meeting on 14.07.2025 at the office of Defendant’s
11 of 21
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 18:24:32 :::
IA(L).340.2025.doc
Advocate followed by regular exchange of email correspondence
between parties. He would submit that Defendant sent settlement offer
on 21.07.2025 through his Advocate and subsequently on 18.08.2025
expressed willingness to hold second round of discussions. He would
submit that considerable efforts were taken by respective Advocates of
both parties to settle the dispute even after filing of the suit, however
none fructified. He would submit that aforesaid efforts clearly fulfilled
the object and purpose of any pre-suit mediation requirement.
10.7.
He would submit that object of pre-suit mediation is to
promote genuine efforts at an amicable dispute resolution and the
same was attempted, though it resulted in failure. Hence rejection of
Suit Plaint on procedural technicalities would defeat the purpose of
law in such circumstances. He would therefore submit that Defendant’s
Application is misconceived and liable to be dismissed on that ground.
11. Mr. Mody, learned Advocate for Defendant has drawn my
attention to the Affidavit-in-Rejoinder dated 09.10.2025 filed by Mr.
Vinod Nair on behalf of Defendant and has made following additional
submissions in Rejoinder:-
11.1. He would submit that Plaintiff has falsely interpreted the
entire purport of Section 12-A and frivolously stated that it is not a
mandatory provision. He would submit that Plaintiff’s argument that
application of Section 12-A is for the Court to decide depending on the
12 of 21
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 18:24:32 :::
IA(L).340.2025.doc
factual matrix of each case does not support its own case as there is no
urgency made out since present suit is filed after 12 months from the
date of issuance of Legal Notice dated 07.07.2023. He would submit
that Plaintiff has neither demonstrated any urgency by its conduct to
agitate its claim before this Court hence its plea of urgency raised in
the plaint is vague and unsupported by any concrete facts or
documents. He would submit that mere assertions of urgency cannot
be a substitute for statutory requirement prescribed under the law. He
would submit that Plaintiff has therefore failed to demonstrate any
urgency warranting immediate judicial intervention.
11.2.
He would submit that mere filing of an application for
urgent ad-interim reliefs does not ipso facto waive the mandatory
statutory requirement under Section 12-A of said Act and Plaintiff
cannot escape its obligation under it. He would submit that in order to
bypass this statutory obligation, Plaintiff was required to specifically
plead and establish genuine urgency in the Suit plaint itself. He would
submit that Plaintiff would have instituted Suit after issuing the
demand notice dated 07.07.2023 to plead urgency, but it did not. With
regard to Plaintiff's argument that non-compliance of Section 12-A
cannot be a ground for rejection of plaint, he would submit that it is
settled position of law that in such case plaint is liable to rejection at
the threshold under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. In support of his above
submission he has referred to and relied upon the decision of the
13 of 21
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 18:24:32 :::
IA(L).340.2025.doc
Supreme Court in Patil Automation Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rakheja Engineers Pvt.
1
Ltd.
11.3.
He would submit that the factual matrix reveals that the
building was completed in or around 25.01.2022, work order relied
upon is dated 01.02.2016, NOC is dated 18.02.2021 and the Legal
Notice is dated 07.07.2023, despite of which Plaintiff filed the Suit on
23.07.2024 without furnishing any explanation whatsoever for such
inordinate delay. He would submit that chronology of events prima
facie demonstrated no urgency at all, hence Plaintiff cannot be
permitted to circumvent the statutory requirement of Section 12-A by
making vague and baseless assertions of urgency. He would submit
that it is not open to a litigant to unilaterally decide that mediation
would be futile.
11.4. He would submit that Plaintiff is merely a contractor and
should have no concern whatsoever with Defendant's dealings with
third parties including sale of flats. He would submit that allegation of
Plaintiff that Defendant is siphoning off funds to defeat Plaintiff's claim
is entirely frivolous and devoid of merit. He would submit that
Plaintiff's failure to produce even a shred of evidence is indicative that
Plaintiff has painted a false narrative to mislead this Court. He would
submit that Interim Application (L) No. 24548 of 2024 for interim
reliefs though filed on 03.08.2024 was never pressed till June 2025
1 (2022) 10 SCC 1
14 of 21
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 18:24:32 :::
IA(L).340.2025.doc
which is also indicative of no urgency.
11.5. He would submit that prior settlement talks between parties
cannot be said to be pre-Suit settlement and cannot be a ground to
bypass statutory requirement of Section 12-A of said Act. He would
submit that the very object of Section 12-A is to refer disputes to a duly
appointed Mediator who being a neutral and specialized professional
would bring an independent perspective and expertise in facilitating
settlement. He would submit that the fact of failure of parties to
amicably resolve their disputes through informal and 'without
prejudice' discussions does not mean that statutory institutional
mediation process would be futile. He would submit that Plaintiff
cannot be permitted to dispense with this statutory requirement on
such untenable grounds because otherwise it will serve as a dangerous
precedent to bypass requirement of Section 12-A of said Act thereby
defeating the purpose of legislation.
12. I have heard Mr. Mody, learned Advocate for Defendant and
Mr. Gujjar, learned Advocate for Plaintiff and with their able assistance
perused the record of the case. Submissions made by both learned
Advocates at the bar in the Application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC
have received due consideration of the Court.
13. It is seen from the paragraph No. 9(c) of the Affidavit in
Rejoinder that both Plaintiff and Defendant have made incorrect
15 of 21
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 18:24:32 :::
IA(L).340.2025.doc
statements regarding filing of Interim Application (L) No. 340 Of 2025.
Plaintiff in his Affidavit-in-Reply has stated that said application was
filed by him whereas Defendant in his Affidavit-in-Rejoinder has stated
that said application was filed seeking condonation of delay in filing
Written Statement which are prima facie incorrect statements.
14. Prima facie , it is seen that Plaintiff does not contemplate
urgent interim relief in said Suit, as interim relief prayed by him is only
a product of profound thinking about the possibility of happening. To
decide the question before me whether due to non-compliance with
Section 12-A of said Act, a Suit should be dismissed under Order VII
Rule 11 of CPC, it is necessary to examine the relief and urgency
sought by Plaintiff. So far as prayers in the said Suit Plaint are
concerned they specifically include the following principal reliefs: (i)
declaration of NOC dated 10.02.2021 to be void and thereby not
binding upon Plaintiff; (ii) recovery of claim amount of
Rs.18,58,21,798/-; (iii) appointment of court receiver to take
possession of properties of Defendant in order to secure claim of
Plaintiff.
15. This Court is of the view that none of these reliefs
contemplate any kind of grave urgency in order to dispense with the
provision of pre-institution mediation, rather parties should have
undergone mediation procedure whereby dispute in the present matter
16 of 21
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 18:24:32 :::
IA(L).340.2025.doc
could have been possibly resolved.
16. Instead, Plaintiff opted to file the said Suit bypassing the
aforesaid provision and unilaterally decided that mediation would be
futile. In this regard, attention is drawn to the decision of the Supreme
2
Court in the case of Yamini Manohar Vs. T.K.D Keerthi wherein it is
observed that it is difficult to agree with the proposition that a Plaintiff
has the absolute choice and right to paralyze Section 12-A of the said
Act by making a prayer for urgent interim relief. It also held that any
camouflage and guise to bypass the statutory mandate of pre-litigation
mediation should be checked when deception and falsity is apparent or
established. The Bench has reiterated the use of the words
“contemplate any urgent interim relief” in Section 12-A(1) of the said
Act with reference to the suit and it should be read as conferring power
on the court to be satisfied thereby ensuring that the legislative
object/intent behind enactment of the said provision is not defeated.
17. On perusal of papers and pleadings it is observed that
Contract / Work Order leading to dispute between the parties is dated
01.02.2016. Admittedly work is carried out by Plaintiff under the Work
Order. NOC relied upon by Defendant is dated 18.02.2021. The
Plaintiff has sent legal notice to Defendant on 07.07.2023 without
raising the issue of NOC. Defendant has replied to the legal notice on
18.08.2024. Thereafter it appears that their negotiations for settlement
2 (2024) 5 SCC 815
17 of 21
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 18:24:32 :::
IA(L).340.2025.doc
of disputes which is seen from the correspondence did not fructify,
therefore Suit is eventually filed on 23.07.2024. Interim Application for
interim reliefs in the Suit is filed on 03.08.2024. This Interim
Application is not pressed by the Plaintiff. Thereafter on 30.06.2025
Defendant files the present Application under Order VII Rule 11 read
with Section 12-A of said Act. It is only then that Plaintiff desires to
press for interim reliefs, but the same is still pending. In these facts and
timeline sense of urgency is lost and therefore Plaintiff loses the right
to plead urgency and exemption from Section 12-A provision of said
Act. Plaintiff in such circumstances cannot seek dispensation with
Section 12-A provision of said Act.
18. The above timeline from 2016 to 2026 and more specifically
from 2023 to 2026, prima facie , shows that even after filing of the Suit
on 23.07.2024 Plaintiff had enough time to go through pre-
institutional mediation which could have been in accordance with law.
Instead, Plaintiff has unilaterally considered mediation to be a futile
exercise and has invoked urgency for exempting the same. In the above
facts, I am of the opinion that Plaintiff has abused the due process of
law and he has no right to bypass the statutory provision under Section
12-A of said Act by pleading grave urgency. The Plaintiff has been
indolent which is evident from the aforementioned timeline.
19. Section 12-A provision of said Act ultimately aims at
18 of 21
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 18:24:32 :::
IA(L).340.2025.doc
expeditious resolution of commercial disputes. In this regard, reference
is made to the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Dhanbad Fuels
3
Private Limited Vs. Union Of India And Another wherein the Court has
held that the test under Section 12-A of said Act is not whether the
prayer for urgent interim relief actually comes to be allowed or not,
but whether on examination of the nature and subject matter of 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. Hence if we consider from this
viewpoint, the arguments advanced by Plaintiff in the present matter
are not testifying grounds for dispensing the Section 12-A mandate
rather Plaintiff has failed to establish urgency.
st
20.
In the case of Patil Automation Pvt. Ltd. (1 supra) Supreme
Court has held and declared that Section 12-A of the Act is mandatory
and any suit instituted violating the mandate of Section 12-A must be
visited with rejection of the Plaint under Order VII Rule 11. It has also
held that this power can be exercised even suo motu by the Court. It is
seen that present Suit in the case before me is brought before me
without complying with provisions of Section 12-A of said Act. To
express the view of the Apex Court in that regard paragraph No.83 in
st
the case of Patil Automation Pvt. Ltd. (1 supra) is reproduced below :
“We may proceed on the basis that if the suit is brought without
3 (2025) 9 SCC 424
19 of 21
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 18:24:32 :::
IA(L).340.2025.doc
complying with Section 12-A, where no urgent interim relief is sought,
may not in one sense, affect the legal right of the defendant. But this
argument overlooks the larger picture which is the real object of the
law. This object is not to be viewed narrowly with reference to the
impact on the parties alone. This is apart from also remembering that if
the parties were to exhaust mediation under Section 12-A, the opposite
side may be, if mediation is successful, saved from the ordeal of a
proceeding in court, which, undoubtedly, would entail costs, whereas,
the mediation costs, as we have noticed, is minimal, and what is more,
a one-time affair, and still further, to be shared equally between the
parties. Each time the plaintiff is compelled to go in for mediation
under Section 12-A there is a ray of hope that the matter may get
settled. The chief advantage and highlight of mediation is that it is a
win-win for all sides, if the mediation is successful. Therefore, it
cannot, in one sense, be argued that no legal right of defendant is
infracted. Further, on the same logic, Section 80(1) CPC and Section
69 of the Partnership Act would not be mandatory. This is however is
not the case.”
21. However, considering the timeline in the present case, I am
of the opinion that it would be appropriate if the present suit
proceeding is kept in abeyance with a direction to the parties to
explore mediation rather than dismissing the Suit under Order VII Rule
11 since the Plaintiff has admittedly carried out the works under the
Works Contract but there are disputed questions. If the Suit is
dismissed, it would necessarily involve loss of court fees, but in my
opinion in the facts and circumstances of the present case and also
considering the submissions made by Mr. Mody about extensive
correspondence exchanged between parties for effecting settlement
prior to filing of the suit proceeding, it would be appropriate to refer
the parties to mediation by keeping the Suit in abeyance which will be
the correct course of action.
22.
On the basis of the above observations, findings and
20 of 21
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 18:24:32 :::
IA(L).340.2025.doc
citations, the Suit is kept in abeyance with the following directions.
23. In the facts and circumstances of the present case it is
therefore directed that the present Suit shall be kept in abeyance with
a direction to both parties to explore the possibility of mediation in
accordance with the provision of Section 12-A of the said Act. Further
direction is given that the mediation proceedings between the parties
hereto must be completed within a fixed time frame as stipulated by
Section 12-A i.e. within a period of three (3) months and it is made
extendable by further two (2) months with the consent of parties, if
the need so arises.
24. Commercial Suit No.3 of 2025 is kept in abeyance. Other
Interim Applications filed alongwith the Suit are also kept in abeyance.
25. In view of the above directions, Interim Application (L)
No.340 of 2025 is disposed.
H. H. SAWANT
[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
Digitally signed
by HARSHADA
HANUMANT
SAWANT
Date: 2026.06.08
17:52:25 +0530
HARSHADA
HANUMANT
SAWANT
21 of 21
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 18:24:32 :::