Karnataka High Court
Sri G K Prakash vs M/S Elegance Components on 30 July, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:29309
WP No. 3258 of 2021
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI
WRIT PETITION NO.3258 OF 2021 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SRI G K PRAKASH
S/O LATE G R KRISHNAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
REPRESENTED BY KARTHA
G K PRAKASH (HUF)
R/AT NO.6-104, 10TH MAIN,
3RD BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 011
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. V B SHIVA KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. M/S ELEGANCE COMPONENTS
Digitally signed NO.961, GROUND FLOOR, I CROSS,
by NEAR IDEAL HOME CLUB,
MADHUSHREE
H RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR,
Location: High BENGALURU - 560 098
Court of REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNERS
Karnataka
a) MAMATHA R
W/O VINAY G,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
b) VINAY G
S/O GANGADHARA K B,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
M/S ELEGANCE COMPONENTS,
KRISH TOWER, NO.9, 2ND FLOOR,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:29309
WP No. 3258 of 2021
HC-KAR
SRINIVASAPURA CROSS,
BEML LAYOUT, CHANNASANDRA VILLAGE,
RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 098
2. SMT. MAMATHA R
W/O VINAY G,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
PARTNER
M/S ELEGANCE COMPONENTS,
NO.961, GROUND FLOOR,
I CROSS, NEAR IDEAL HOME CLUB,
RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 098
AND ALSO AT
NO.318, DECCAN ARCADE-2,
APARTMENT 3RD FLOOR, 3RD MAIN,
BEML LAYOUT, 5TH STAGE,
RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 098
3. VINAY G
S/O GANGADHARA K B,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
PARTNER
M/S ELEGANCE COMPONENTS,
NO.961, GROUND FLOOR,
I CROSS, NEAR IDEAL HOME CLUB,
RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 098
AND ALSO AT
NO.318, DECCAN ARCADE-2,
APARTMENT 3RD FLOOR, 3RD MAIN,
BEML LAYOUT, 5TH STAGE,
RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 098
...RESPONDENTS
(R2 & R3 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:29309
WP No. 3258 of 2021
HC-KAR
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER
DATED 21.12.2020 PASSED BY THE COMMERCIAL COURTS
LXXXIII ADDITIONAL COMMERCIAL COURT & SESSIONS
JUDGE, AT BENGALURU IN COM.O.S.NO.400/2020 PENDING
CONSIDERATION AND DISPOSAL OF THE ABOVE PETITION
AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI
ORAL ORDER
This petition is filed seeking following reliefs:
(a) for a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other
appropriate writ or directions quashing the order
dated 21.12.2020 passed by the (Commercial
Courts) LXXXIII Additional City Civil Session Judge,
at Bengaluru in COM.O.S.No.400/2020 as per
Annexure-'A'.
(b) Order directing the LXXXIII Additional City Civil
Session Judge in COM.O.S.No.400/2020 to admit and
consider the Interlocutory Application.
(c) Cost of the Petition.
2. Sri. V.B. Shivakumar, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed
Com.O.S.No.400/2020, which came to be returned on the
NC: 2025:KHC:29309
HC-KAR
ground that the petitioner/plaintiff has not exhausted the
remedy of pre-institution mediation. However, the Commercial
Court has ignored the mandate of Section 12A of the
Commercial Courts Act, 2015, (for short 'Act'). As the petitioner
had filed an application seeking for attachment of Immovable
properties before judgment.
3. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for
the petitioner and perused the material available on record.
4. The petitioner filed Com.O.S.No.400/2020 seeking for
relief of recovery of money and other related reliefs. Along
with the plaint, the petitioner filed an application under Order
XXXVIII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking
interim relief of attachment of immovable properties. When
things stood thus, the Commercial Court has committed in
returning the plaint by directing the petitioner/plaintiff to
exhaust the remedy of pre-institution mediation. The mandate
of Section 12A of the Act, specifies that a suit which does not
contemplate any urgent interim relief under this Act, shall not
be instituted unless the plaintiff exhausts the remedy of pre-
NC: 2025:KHC:29309
HC-KAR
institution mediation. It appears from the record that the
respondents have not been served.
5. A perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the
application for waiving the process to be adopted under
Section 12(A) of the Commercial Courts Act reflects that some
mediation was conducted between the parties and that
mediation did not conclude in any settlement. Moreover,
allegations were made that the defendants had been making
attempts to remove the stock in trade and had made
arrangements to wind-up the business and move away from
Bengaluru City in order to defeat the legitimate claim of the
applicant. I find that there is no consideration of the said
allegations.
6. For the aforementioned reasons, I proceed to pass
the following:
ORDER
i) Writ petition is disposed of.
ii) The impugned order dated 21.12.2020 passed by
the (Commercial Courts) LXXXIII Additional City
Civil Session Judge, at Bengaluru, in
Com.O.S.No.400/2020 is set-aside.
NC: 2025:KHC:29309
HC-KAR
iii) The Commercial Court is directed to consider the
application filed by the applicant seeking waiver of
the mandate Section 12(A), afresh.
iv) No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(JAYANT BANERJI)
JUDGE
TIN
