Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Madras High Court: In a civil revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 3 February 2026 passed by the Principal Commercial Court, Egmore, Chennai ( Commercial Court), whereby the plaint was returned with direction to comply with pre-institution mediation and settlement procedure contemplated under Section 12-A, Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (Commercial Courts Act), a Single Judge Bench of S. Sounthar, J., set aside the impugned order of the Commercial Court and directed the Commercial Court to number the plaint if it is otherwise in order and proceed with the suit in accordance with law. The Court held that pre-institution mediation under Section 12-A, Commercial Courts Act not mandatory when the suit contemplates passing of urgent interim relief.
In the instant matter, the petitioner/plaintiff filed a commercial suit seeking declaration that the commercial arrangement between the parties stood terminated on 31 May 2025 and that the usage of printers belonging to the defendant was only on unit-rate basis till that date. The plaintiff further sought declaration that the alleged agreements dated 31 October 2023, 8 November 2023, 27 February 2024, 18 June 2024 and 6 December 2024 were illegal, void and unenforceable as they were executed without authority or approval of the Board of Directors of the plaintiff Company.
The plaintiff also prayed for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from raising invoices after 31 May 2025, and for mandatory injunction directing the defendant to remove 127 printers and equipments from the plaintiff’s premises. In addition, the plaintiff claimed damages towards unauthorised occupation and storage charges at the rate of Rs 3600 per month per printer.
Along with the suit, two interlocutory applications were filed seeking urgent interim relief, namely, interim injunction restraining the defendant from issuing invoices or demands after 1 June 2025, and interim mandatory injunction directing removal of the printers pending disposal of the suit.
The Commercial Court returned the plaint holding that the suit did not contemplate urgent interim relief and therefore the plaintiff must first undergo mandatory pre-institution mediation under Section 12-A, Commercial Courts Act. Aggrieved by the return of plaint, the plaintiff filed the present revision petition.
The Court stated that since the plaint was returned even without numbering and without issuing summon to the respondent, therefore, it proceeded to dispose of the revision without issuing notice to the respondent as the respondent was not heard before passing of the impugned order.
The Court examined Section 12-A, Commercial Courts Act which mandates pre-institution mediation in commercial disputes only when the suit does not contemplate any urgent interim relief. The provision creates two classes of suits, (i) suits which contemplate urgent interim relief, and (ii) suits which do not contemplate urgent interim relief. Pre-institution mediation is mandatory only in the second category.
“The mandate under Section 12-A, Commercial Courts Act, 2015, with regard to the Pre-Institution Mediation is applicable only to the suits which do not contemplate any urgent interim orders. However, in respect of other class of suits namely the suits which contemplate urgent interim relief, Pre-Institution Mediation is not required.”
Referring to Ganga Complex v. TSR Films (P) Ltd.,1 the Court reiterated that the requirement under Section 12-A is less stringent than the notice requirement under Section 80, Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC). The statute leaves the determination of expression “contemplate any urgent interim relief” largely to the plaintiff’s pleadings, provided that the claim for urgent relief is not merely illusory or a camouflage to bypass mediation.
The Court noted that a close scanning of Ganga Complex (supra), Yamini Manohar v. T.K.D. Keerthi, (2024) 5 SCC 815, Dhanbad Fuels (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, (2025) 9 SCC 424 and Novenco Building and Industry A/S v. Xero Energy Engg. Solutions (P) Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2278, made clear that “whenever an urgent interim prayer is sought for by the plaintiff and the suit is filed without exhausting the Pre-Institution Mediation procedure, the Court has to see whether there is a real contemplation of urgent relief in the stand point of view of the plaintiff based on the subject matter of the suit and cause of action.”
Applying these principles, the Court noted that the plaintiff had specifically pleaded that the defendant continued to store printers in the plaintiff’s premises and continued to raise invoices even after termination of the agreement, thereby causing inconvenience and loss of commercial space. It further observed that the petitioner had sought two forms of urgent interim relief, a prohibitory injunction against further invoices and a mandatory injunction directing removal of the printers.
The Court asserted that whether the petitioner’s claim regarding termination of the agreement was legally sustainable or whether the interim relief should ultimately be granted were matters to be examined after the suit is numbered and heard on merits. At the stage of presentation of the plaint, the Court’s role is only to see whether the relief claimed is plausibly urgent.
The Court observed that the plaintiff in its pleading clearly explained the difficulties faced by it due to defendant’s action, therefore, it cannot be said that the interim relief sought for by the plaintiff was a camouflage to bypass the mandatory pre-institution mediation procedure contemplated under Section 12-A, Commercial Courts Act. It was opined that the urgent reliefs sought for by the plaintiff appear to be real based on plaintiff averment in its pleadings, Therefore, it was held that the Commercial Court committed an error in returning the plaint with direction to undergo mandatory pre-institution mediation and settlement procedure.
The Court allowed the civil revision petition, set aside the impugned order of the Commercial Court and directed the Commercial Court to number the plaint if it is otherwise in order and proceed with the suit in accordance with law.
However, the Court clarified that since the order was passed before numbering of the suit and without hearing the defendant, the defendant is at liberty to raise objections regarding non-compliance with Section 12-A, Commercial Courts Act after entering appearance, and such objection shall be decided on its own merits.
[Aarthi Scans (P) Ltd. v. Konica Minolta Business Solutions India (P) Ltd., C.R.P. No. 754 of 2026, decided on 27-2-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Mr.C.Suraj, Counsel for the Petitioner
Buy Constitution of India HERE
1. A.No. 1576 of 2023 in C.S.(Comm.Div).No. 24 of 2023, decided on 24-3-2023.