Pre-institution mediation may be dispensed with where the plaint genuinely contemplates urgent interim relief.

The plaintiff purchased electronic goods from the defendants under three purchase orders pursuant to an agreement dated 9 August 2023. Although the defendants supplied goods under the first two purchase orders, they failed to supply goods under the third order. The defendants had issued security cheques, which were dishonoured upon presentation. The plaintiff claimed that it had made an excess payment of ₹2,04,04,769/- for goods that were never supplied.

The plaintiff previously instituted CS 129 of 2024 before the non-commercial division, seeking recovery and consequential reliefs. In that suit, the Court granted an interim order directing the defendants to maintain a balance of ₹2,21,96,816/- in specified bank accounts and to disclose their assets; the order was extended from time to time.

By order dated 22 June 2026, the plaint was returned for presentation before the Commercial Division.

The plaintiff thereafter instituted the present commercial suit and sought dispensation of pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, contending that urgent interim protection was necessary because of the defendants’ alleged financial unreliability, dishonoured cheques, pending criminal proceedings, and alleged acknowledgment of liability.

Whether the plaintiff had genuinely contemplated an urgent interim relief so as to justify dispensation of mandatory pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and Rule 8 of the Calcutta High Court Commercial Division Practice Directions, 2021.

Whether the interim orders and pleadings in the earlier non-commercial suit could be relied upon while determining the plaintiff’s entitlement to dispense with pre-institution mediation in the newly instituted commercial suit.

Whether the plaintiff was entitled to leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, 1865 and Order II Rule 2 of the CPC.

Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 makes pre-institution mediation mandatory for commercial suits that do not contemplate urgent interim relief; non-compliance ordinarily renders the plaint liable to rejection.

Rule 8 of the Calcutta High Court Commercial Division Practice Directions, 2021 empowers the Court to grant leave to institute a commercial suit without exhausting pre-institution mediation where urgent relief is contemplated, and permits return of the plaint where such urgency is not established.

Relying on Patil Automation Pvt. Ltd. v. Rakheja Engineers Pvt. Ltd., Yamini Manohar v. T.K.D. Keerthi, Dhanbad Fuels Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and Novenco Building and Industry A/S, the Court held that urgency must be assessed holistically from the plaint, documents, subject matter, cause of action and the plaintiff’s standpoint; the relief need not ultimately succeed, but it must disclose a real and plausible need for immediate intervention and must not be a mere device to avoid mediation.

The Court also applied the principle that the commercial plaint must be independently examined, without treating orders or pleadings in the earlier non-commercial proceedings as determinative.

The Court found that the plaint disclosed more than a merely formal or anticipatory prayer for urgent relief. The plaintiff had pleaded that several criminal proceedings were pending against the defendants, that the defendants were allegedly habitual commercial defaulters, that security cheques issued towards the liability had been dishonoured, and that the defendants had allegedly acknowledged the outstanding amount by email.

These allegations, viewed from the plaintiff’s standpoint, created a plausible apprehension that the defendants might dissipate or transfer their assets during the period required for mediation, thereby rendering a future decree ineffective.

Although the previous interim order and the defendants’ conduct in the earlier suit could not themselves determine the Section 12A issue, the present plaint independently contained sufficient facts indicating a contemplated urgent protective order.

The Court therefore exercised its discretion under Rule 8 and held that the statutory exception to pre-institution mediation was attracted.

Leave was granted under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, 1865 on the basis of the statements in the plaint, and under Order II Rule 2 of the CPC on the basis of paragraph 25 of the plaint.

The plaint was admitted, subject to departmental scrutiny.