The Bombay High Court (Bombay Bench) dismissed the applications seeking rejection of plaint on grounds of non-compliance with Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, holding that the suit could proceed without mandatory pre-institution mediation since the plaintiff claimed “urgent interim relief.”
The plaintiff sought mandatory injunctions for vacating premises and registering Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreements (PAAA) with members blocking redevelopment, and for damages. Defendants 5 and 13 urged rejection of the plaintiff’s suit, objecting that no pre-litigation mediation was held under Section 12A.
The redevelopment project was pending since 2012, with agreements and supplementary deeds signed in 2024. As of August 2025, 134 out of 158 members had surrendered possession pursuant to compensation, but the rest resisted, preventing construction.
The plaintiff countered that the majority had complied, delays by a minority caused significant hardship and time-sensitive damages, and initiating redevelopment was “urgent” from their standpoint.
The Bench comprising Justice Gauri Godse observed that urgency must be assessed from the plaintiff’s point of view, not lightly dismissed as “disguised”, unless it is demonstrated as clearly artificial. As per pleadings, the continual delay, compensation payout, and majority compliance indicated a bona fide need for urgent relief.
In result, the interim applications for rejection were dismissed. The suit, claiming urgent interim relief, was allowed to proceed even without pre-litigation mediation under Section 12A, aligning with the Supreme Court’s interpretation of statutory urgency. The suit will be listed for further consideration of actual interim orders.
Cases relied on:
1. Patil Automation Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. vs. Rakheja Engineers Pvt. Ltd., (2022) 10 SCC 1
2. Yamini Manohar vs. T.K.D. Keerthi, (2024) 5 SCC 815
3. Dhanbad Fuels Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India and Anr., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1129
Cases referred to:
1. Future Corporate Resources Pvt. Ltd. vs. Edelweiss Special Opportunities Fund and Anr., 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 3744
2. Kaulchand H. Jogani vs. Shree Vardhan Investment and Ors., 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 4752
3. Dahiben vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanushali, (2020) 7 SCC 366
Appearances:
Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar a/w.Mr. Devansh Shah, Mr. Santosh Pathak, Ms. Archana Karmokar i/b. M/s. Law Origin for Lakhani Realty LLP.
Mr. Karl Tamboly i/b. Mr. Milind Nar for Dr. Abraham Mathai, Original Defendant no. 13.
Mr. Amogh Singh a/w. Mr. Nimish Lothikar, Mr. Deepesh Kadam i/b. Mr. Nimesh Lotlikar for Defendant No. 1 – Society.
Mr. Sugdare a/w. Ms. Nehta Surte and Mr. Sandeep Sharma for Defendant No. 5.
Mr. Dhiraj Gole i/b. Mr. C. N. Gole for Defendant Nos. 2, 6 and 21 in IAL/24924/2025.
Mr. Madhur Surana for Defendant nos. 12, 14 to 16, 18, 19, 22 to 24, 26 to 27 and 37 in IAL/24924/2025.
