Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the suit contemplated urgent interim relief so as to dispense with pre-institution mediation under Section 12A(1) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and, consequently, whether the plaint was liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908.
Analysis: The Court held that the expression "contemplate any urgent interim relief" is to be determined from the frame of the plaint and the reliefs sought, and not from whether the Court ultimately grants interim relief. It relied on the principle that the plaintiff is the sole determinant of the pleadings and the prayers made, and that where urgent interim relief is genuinely sought, the statutory bar of pre-institution mediation does not apply. On the facts, the plaint specifically pleaded imminent harm, irreparable injury, and the need for an immediate injunction, and the accompanying application also sought ex parte ad interim relief. These pleadings brought the suit within the category of a suit contemplating urgent interim relief.
Conclusion: The suit was rightly held to be exempt from pre-institution mediation, and the application for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 was correctly dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi: Whether a suit contemplates urgent interim relief under Section 12A(1) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 is to be assessed from the pleadings and reliefs sought in the plaint, and if such relief is sought, pre-institution mediation is not mandatory.