The Supreme Court of India, in Yamini Manohar vs. T.K.D. Keerthi, addressed the critical question of whether a suit seeking urgent interim relief can bypass the mandatory pre-litigation mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The case provides significant clarity on the interpretation of "urgent interim relief" and the role of courts in ensuring compliance with Section 12A while preventing its misuse.

• Background: Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, mandates pre-institution mediation for commercial disputes unless the suit contemplates urgent interim relief. This provision was introduced to promote alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, decongest courts, and expedite dispute resolution. However, the ambiguity surrounding the term "urgent interim relief" has led to inconsistent judicial interpretations, necessitating the Supreme Court's intervention.
• Nature of the Dispute: The respondent filed a commercial suit under the Commercial Courts Act, seeking urgent interim relief.
• Application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC: The petitioner moved an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the mandatory pre-litigation mediation under Section 12A was not exhausted.
• Lower Courts' Decisions: Both the District Commercial Court and the Delhi High Court dismissed the petitioner's application, holding that the suit contemplated urgent interim relief, thereby exempting it from pre-litigation mediation.
• Supreme Court Appeal: The petitioner challenged the High Court's decision before the Supreme Court, arguing that the plea for urgent interim relief was merely a pretext to bypass Section 12A.
• Issues Raised:
  • Is the requirement of pre-litigation mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act mandatory in cases seeking urgent interim relief?
  • What is the scope of "urgent interim relief" under Section 12A(1)?
  • Can courts examine the bona fides of a plaintiff's claim for urgent interim relief to prevent misuse of Section 12A?
• Petitioner's Submissions:
  • Misuse of Urgent Interim Relief Exception: The plaintiff's plea for urgent interim relief was a guise to bypass the mandatory requirement of pre-litigation mediation under Section 12A.
  • Judicial Oversight: Courts must scrutinize whether the plea for urgent interim relief is genuine or merely a strategy to avoid mediation.
  • Legislative Intent: Section 12A aims to decongest courts and promote mediation, and allowing such exceptions without scrutiny would defeat its purpose.
• Respondent's Submissions:
  • Right to Urgent Relief: The plaintiff has the discretion to seek urgent interim relief, and the court's role is limited to assessing the merits of the relief sought.
  • Compliance with Section 12A: The plea for urgent interim relief exempts the suit from pre-litigation mediation under Section 12A.
  • Precedents: Cited judgments that upheld the plaintiff's prerogative to seek urgent interim relief without mandatory pre-litigation mediation.
• Judgments and Citations Referred:
  • Petitioner's References:
    • Patil Automation Private Limited vs. Rakheja Engineers Private Limited (2022 SCC OnLine SC 1028): Held that Section 12A is mandatory, barring cases contemplating urgent interim relief.
    • Kaulchand H. Jogani vs. M/s Shree Vardhan Investment (2022 SCC OnLine Bom 4752): Discussed the need for courts to assess whether a suit genuinely contemplates urgent interim relief.
  • Respondent's References:
    • Chandra Kishore Chaurasia vs. R.A. Perfumery Works Private Limited (2022 SCC OnLine Del 3529): Held that courts cannot compel pre-litigation mediation in suits involving urgent interim relief.
• Provisions of Law Discussed:
  • Section 12A, Commercial Courts Act, 2015: Mandates pre-litigation mediation unless the suit contemplates urgent interim relief. The term "contemplate" suggests that the plaintiff must deliberate and consider the need for urgent interim relief.
  • Order VII Rule 11 CPC: Allows rejection of plaints barred by law.
  • Section 80(2) CPC: Permits filing of suits seeking urgent interim relief without prior notice, provided the plaintiff justifies the urgency.
• Analysis and Reasoning of the Court:
  • Mandatory Nature of Section 12A: The Court reaffirmed its earlier decision in Patil Automation, holding that Section 12A is mandatory unless the suit contemplates urgent interim relief.
  • Scope of "Urgent Interim Relief": The term "contemplate" in Section 12A(1) requires the plaintiff to demonstrate the necessity for urgent interim relief. The Court emphasized that such relief must be bona fide and not a pretext to evade pre-litigation mediation.
  • Judicial Oversight: Courts have a limited but critical role in assessing the bona fides of a plaintiff's claim for urgent interim relief. The Court clarified that:
    • If the plea for urgent interim relief is found to be genuine, the suit is exempt from pre-litigation mediation.
    • If the plea is a disguise, the court can reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
  • Balancing Legislative Intent and Judicial Discretion: The Court balanced the legislative intent of promoting mediation with the plaintiff's right to seek urgent relief. It cautioned against allowing plaintiffs an "absolute and unfettered right" to bypass Section 12A by merely framing their suit to include urgent interim relief.

Decision:
The Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition, holding that: The suit genuinely contemplated urgent interim relief, exempting it from pre-litigation mediation under Section 12A. The lower courts correctly dismissed the petitioner's application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

Concluding Note:
This judgment provides much-needed clarity on the interplay between Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act and the plaintiff's right to seek urgent interim relief. By emphasizing judicial oversight, the Court has ensured that the legislative intent behind Section 12A is not defeated while safeguarding the plaintiff's access to justice.

Case Title: Yamini Manohar Vs. T.K.D. Keerthi
Date of Order: October 13, 2023
Case No.: Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 32275/2023
Court: Supreme Court of India
Judges: Hon'ble Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Hon'ble Justice S.V.N. Bhatti

Disclaimer:
The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor - Patent and Trademark Attorney
Email: ajayamitabhsuman@gmail.com, Ph no: 9990389539