The Delhi High Court, while adjudicating a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, reaffirmed the settled legal position concerning the scope and applicability of Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (“the Act”). A Single Judge Bench presided over by Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta, relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Dhanbad Fuels Private Limited v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1129, held that the mandatory requirement of pre-institution mediation under Section 12A does not apply in cases where urgent interim relief is sought.
The dispute stemmed from a rent agreement executed between the Petitioner and the Respondent. The Respondent, being the owner of the suit property, had leased the premises to the Petitioner under a rent agreement dated 15.03.2009 for a period of nine years. Upon the Petitioner allegedly committing repeated defaults, the Respondent invoked Clause 5 of the agreement and terminated the tenancy through a legal notice. Despite termination, the Petitioner failed to vacate the premises, prompting the Respondent to institute a suit before the Trial Court, accompanied by an application seeking an “ex parte ad interim” injunction.
Although the Trial Court initially, in the ordinary suit, referred the dispute to mediation, the proceedings did not yield a settlement and were returned as “Not settled”. Subsequent to the unsuccessful mediation, the plaint was returned by the Trial Court to be instituted before a Commercial Court. Thereafter, by order dated 07.08.2025, the Trial Court granted interim relief in favour of the Respondent. Aggrieved by this order, the Petitioner approached the Delhi High Court, assailing the impugned decision of the Trial Court.
The High Court rejected the Petitioner’s contention that the relief sought by the Respondent did not qualify as “urgent interim relief”. The Court observed that, given the nature of the dispute, denial of interim protection would have the effect of rendering the final relief illusory and could also result in avoidable multiplicity of proceedings.
Moreover, the Single Bench, while considering the reliance placed by the Respondent in Aaone Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Sabita Jha and Ord., 2025 SCC OnLine Del 42, held that since the mediation had already taken place in between the present parties in the ordinary suit before the institution of plaint before the Commercial Court, the requirement of the pre-institution mediation cannot be made a mandate. Hence, the Court emphasized that “The Respondent cannot be burdened again to avail pre-institution mediation all over again and file a fresh suit thereafter”.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the impugned order of the Trial Court suffered from no infirmity or illegality.
Appearances:
For Petitioner: Mr. Kirti Uppal and Mr. Anurag Ahluwalia, Senior Advocates with Mr. Ankit Banati, Mr. Umang Tyagi, Mr. Zuber Ali, Ms. Archisha Satyarthi and Mr. Siddharth Sharma, Advocates.
For Respondent: Mr. Roshan Santhalia, Ms. Kavya Arora and Mr. Himanshu Kumar Pathak, Advocates.
