Pre-institution mediation compliance under commercial law can be satisfied by genuine use of a recognised court-annexed mediation centre.

Pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act is mandatory where urgent interim relief is not sought, but substantial compliance was treated as sufficient when the plaintiff genuinely attempted mediation before a recognised court-annexed mediation centre and the respondent did not participate. The absence of mediation before the District Legal Services Authority did not, on these facts, defeat the purpose of Section 12A. The Delhi HC also noted that court-annexed mediation centres are recognised under the Mediation Act, 2023, and that a hyper-technical approach should not override substantial justice where the opposite party remained absent.

---

---

Issues: Whether the plaint could be rejected for non-compliance with Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 merely because pre-institution mediation was conducted before a court-annexed mediation centre and not before the District Legal Services Authority.

Analysis: Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 makes pre-institution mediation mandatory where urgent interim relief is not sought. The appellant had approached the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre for mediation, notices were issued, the respondent did not appear, and a non-starter report was generated. The Court held that this was an attempt to settle the dispute amicably and that the absence of proceedings before the DLSA did not, in the facts, defeat the underlying purpose of Section 12A. The Court also noted that court-annexed mediation centres are recognised under Section 40 of the Mediation Act, 2023, and that a hyper-technical approach should not be used to defeat substantial justice where the respondent was absent even in the suit proceedings.

Conclusion: The rejection of the plaint was unsustainable and the appellant was entitled to succeed on this issue.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the order rejecting the plaint was set aside, and the suit was revived for consideration on merits before the trial court.

Ratio Decidendi: Substantial compliance with the mandatory requirement of pre-institution mediation is sufficient where the plaintiff has genuinely attempted mediation before a recognised court-annexed mediation centre and the opposing party does not participate.

---