The Supreme Court dismissed an application filed under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, upholding the requirement of pre-litigation mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as CC Act). The Court emphasized that this provision mandates pre-litigation mediation unless the suit involves urgent interim relief, with the Court having the power to assess whether such relief is warranted or not.
Brief Facts:
The appellant in this case sought relief after being disqualified for the position of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) at the Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited (TANGEDCO) due to being colour blind. The appellant was academically qualified, but during a medical examination, it was discovered that he had color-defective vision. The Regional Medical Board (RMB) confirmed this condition, stating that it would render him unfit for the role.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The plaintiff's application under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code was based on the premise that Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act did not require her to exhaust the remedy of pre-litigation mediation. She contended that she could seek urgent interim relief and proceed with the suit without mediation.
Observations of the Court:
The Supreme Court referred to its judgment in ‘Patil Automation Private Limited and Ors. v. Rakheja Engineers Private Limited[1], where it held that Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act was mandatory and required pre-litigation mediation unless the suit sought urgent interim relief. The Court observed that the mere fact that a plaintiff sought urgent interim relief did not automatically bypass the statutory mediation requirement. The commercial court had the authority to examine the nature of the suit, the cause of action, and the prayer for interim relief to determine whether pre-litigation mediation was necessary.
The Court clarified that the plaintiff's plea for urgent interim relief should not be a disguise to bypass pre-litigation mediation. While the Court's issuance of notice or granting interim stay indicated an inclination to entertain the plaint, the denial of interim relief post-arguments or upon examination of the principles of a prima facie case, irreparable harm, and balance of convenience did not justify dismissal of the commercial suit under Order VII, Rule 11.
The Court noted that Section 12A(1) of the Commercial Courts Act used the term ‘contemplate any urgent interim relief,’ suggesting that the suit, through the plaint, documents, and facts, should indicate the need for urgent interim relief. The commercial court was expected to conduct a limited exercise to determine if the suit genuinely contemplated such relief.
The Decision of the Court:
The Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition, upholding the Delhi High Court's decision that rejected the application under Order VII, Rule 11. The Court's decision clarified that plaintiffs could not bypass the statutory mandate of pre-litigation mediation by merely seeking urgent interim relief, and the commercial courts had the authority to assess the necessity of mediation based on the nature of the suit and the need for urgent interim relief.
Case Title: Yamini Manohar vs. T K D Keerthi
Citation: 2023 Latest Caselaw 936 SC
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Sanjiv Khanna and S.V.N. Bhatti
Case No.: SLP(C) No. 023488 / 2023
Advocate for the Petitioner: J. Sai Deepak, Kartikey Bhatt, R. Abhishek, Shraddha Chirania, and Kunal Mimani
Advocate for the Respondent: Kunal Khanna, Rishi Raj Sharma, Vidhi Pasricha, Swastik Bisarya, and Pranav Prasoon
Read Order @LatestLaws.com
[1] 2022 Latest Caselaw 645 SC
Picture Source :
