Section 12-A pre-institution mediation is mandatory unless the suit genuinely contemplates urgent interim relief.

In brief

The question

Whether the appellant’s suit could proceed without pre-institution mediation under Section 12-A on the basis that it contemplated urgent interim relief

The court held

The High Court held that there was no sufficient ground to interfere with the impugned order.

It also directed

The appeal was dismissed, with no order as to costs; any pending application was also dismissed.

01Facts

The appellant challenged the Commercial Court, Dehradun’s order dated 2 September 2024, which declined to permit it to institute an injunction suit without first complying with Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

¶ 3–4

The Commercial Court had found that the case did not warrant urgent interim relief.

¶ 3–4

In its application seeking exemption from pre-institution mediation, the appellant stated that it would accept a direction for settlement discussions if the defendants genuinely wished to resolve the dispute.

¶ 7

02Issues

i.Whether the appellant’s suit could proceed without pre-institution mediation under Section 12-A on the basis that it contemplated urgent interim relief

¶ 3–4

ii.Whether the Commercial Court’s order declining exemption from Section 12-A compliance warranted appellate interference

¶ 3–4, 8–9

03Law Applied

Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 is mandatory; a suit that does not satisfy its requirements is liable to rejection under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Patil Automation (P) Ltd. v. Rakheja Engineers (P) Ltd., as discussed in Yamini Manohar v. T.K.D. Keerthi).

¶ 5

A suit may be instituted without first resorting to mediation where, assessed from the plaintiff’s standpoint in light of the suit’s nature, subject matter and cause of action, urgent interim relief is genuinely contemplable. The urgency exception cannot be used as an unfounded device to bypass Section 12-A; whether interim relief is ultimately granted is not determinative (Dhandbad Fuels Private Limited v. Union of India).

¶ 6

Provisions in the judgment · 3 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Commercial Courts Act, 2015 Section 13

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Section 80

Limitation Act, 1963 Section 14

04Reasoning

The Commercial Court had found that the case was not one in which urgent interim relief was warranted, and the High Court found no basis to interfere with that assessment.

¶ 4

The appellant’s own statement that it would accept settlement discussions if the defendants came forward to resolve the dispute supported the conclusion that the matter could be taken through the statutory mediation process rather than exempted from it.

¶ 7

The Court therefore upheld the Commercial Court’s decision to return the plaint to ensure compliance with Section 12-A.

¶ 8