Mandatory pre-institution mediation in commercial suits does not apply where the plaint genuinely seeks urgent interim relief.

Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act makes pre-institution mediation mandatory for a commercial suit unless the plaint genuinely seeks urgent interim relief. That assessment depends on the plaint, the reliefs claimed, and the surrounding pleadings, not on a separate exemption request. The court may look beyond the label of urgent interim relief and reject a colourable invocation intended to evade the statutory bar under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. However, a refusal of interim relief on merits does not by itself justify rejection of the plaint. Applying that approach, the plaint was found to contemplate urgent interim relief and the rejection of the plaint was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 is mandatory and a suit seeking urgent interim relief is excluded from the requirement of pre-institution mediation; (ii) Whether the commercial court may examine the plaint and reliefs to determine whether a prayer for urgent interim relief is a camouflage to bypass Section 12A and reject the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Issue (i): Whether Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 is mandatory and a suit seeking urgent interim relief is excluded from the requirement of pre-institution mediation.

Analysis: The statutory scheme makes pre-institution mediation mandatory for a commercial suit that does not contemplate urgent interim relief. The expression used in Section 12A qualifies the suit and the determination is to be made from the plaint, the reliefs claimed, and the surrounding pleadings. The requirement is not a formal one dependent upon a separate application for exemption. Where the plaint itself seeks urgent interim relief, the suit falls outside the mediation mandate.

Conclusion: The provision is mandatory, but a suit that genuinely contemplates urgent interim relief is not hit by the pre-institution mediation requirement.

Issue (ii): Whether the commercial court may examine the plaint and reliefs to determine whether a prayer for urgent interim relief is a camouflage to bypass Section 12A and reject the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: The court is not bound to accept a mere label of urgent interim relief if the pleadings and surrounding facts show that the relief is illusory or designed to evade the statutory bar. A limited judicial scrutiny is permissible to see whether the plaint, viewed holistically, truly contemplates urgent interim relief. At the same time, refusal of ad interim relief or eventual denial of interim relief on merits does not by itself justify rejection of the plaint. On the facts, the plaint did seek urgent interim relief and the challenge to rejection of the plaint was therefore unsustainable.

Conclusion: The commercial court can make a limited scrutiny for camouflage, and the rejection of the plaint was upheld as lawful.

Final Conclusion: The special leave petition failed, and the dismissal of the application under Order VII, Rule 11 was affirmed because the suit was found to contemplate urgent interim relief within the meaning of Section 12A.

Ratio Decidendi: In a commercial suit, the applicability of Section 12A depends on whether the plaint, read as a whole, truly contemplates urgent interim relief, and the court may reject a colourable invocation of such relief to bypass mandatory pre-institution mediation.

---