[Cites 13, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
Aarthi Scans Private Limited vs Konica Minolta Business Solutions ... on 27 February, 2026
2026:MHC:863
C.R.P.No.754 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 27.02.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR
C.R.P.No.754 of 2026
and C.M.P.Nos.3968 and 3970 of 2026
Aarthi Scans Private Limited,
Represented by its Director Dr.J.Prasanna Vignesh
No.15, Amman Kovil Street
Vadapalani, Chennai - 600026 ... Petitioner
vs.
Konica Minolta Business Solutions India Private Limited
180, Capital Towers Kodambakkam High Rd
Tirumurthy Nagar, Nungambakkam
Chennai, Tamil Nadu-600034.
Also at :
10th Floor, DLF Cyber City Building No.8, Tower C
Phase-II, Gurgaon, Haryana-122002. ... Respondent
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, to set aside the order dated 03.02.2026 passed in
C.O.S.(S.R.).No.63 of 2026 by the learned Principal Commercial Court,
Egmore, Chennai and consequently, direct the Commercial Court, Chennai
to number the suit and take up the interim applications filed by the
Petitioner/Plaintiff for interim injunction and interim mandatory, filed as
against the Respondent/Defendant on an urgent basis for hearing.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Suraj
1/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2026 11:40:13 am )
C.R.P.No.754 of 2026
ORDER
The Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order passed by
the Principal Commercial Court, Egmore, Chennai in C.O.S.(S.R.).No.63 of
2026, dated 03.02.2026 returning the plaint presented by the petitioner with
direction to comply with Pre-Institution Mediation and Settlement
procedure contemplated under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act,
2015.
2. The petitioner herein filed a suit in C.O.S.(S.R.).No.63 of 2026
seeking a declaration that commercial arrangement between the
petitioner/plaintiff and the respondent/defendant stood terminated on
31.05.2025 and the usage of printers by the plaintiff belonging to the
defendant, until 31.05.2025, was on a unit-rate basis. The petitioner also
sought for a declaration that alleged agreements dated 31.10.2023,
08.11.2023, 27.02.2024, 18.06.2024 and 06.12.2024 are illegal, void,
unenforceable and not binding on the plaintiff as those agreements were
executed without authority or approval of the plaintiff's Board of Directors
and the same stands terminated with effect from 31.05.2025. The plaintiff
also sought for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from raising
or demanding any invoices from 31.05.2025. It also sought for mandatory
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2026 11:40:13 am )
injunction directing the defendant to take back and remove all the printers
and equipments (127 units) from the plaintiff's premises mentioned in the
schedule to the plaint. Apart from the above relief, the plaintiff also sought
for damages towards unauthorised occupation, storage and demurrage
charges at the rate of Rs.3,600/- per month per printer for 127 printers,
amounting to Rs.27,43,200/- for a period from June-2025 to
November-2025 and for a further sum of Rs.3,600/- per month from
December-2025 till the date on which the printers are removed from the
plaintiff's premises.
3. The plaint was presented before the Commercial Court and along
with the plaint, the plaintiff also filed two interlocutory applications seeking
urgent interim relief, which reads as follows:-
(a) Interim Injunction restraining the defendant from raising or issuing
any invoices, rentals, click charges, reminders or payment demands
against the Plaintiff with effect from 01.06.2025, pending disposal of
the suit.
(b) Interim Mandatory Injunction directing the defendant to take back
and remove all printers and related equipments (127 units)
belonging to the Defendant from the Plaintiff’s premises as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2026 11:40:13 am )
mentioned in the Schedule, pending disposal of the suit.
4. The Commercial Court not being satisfied with the pleadings of
the plaintiff came to the conclusion that the plaint does not contemplate any
urgent interim relief and therefore, the plaintiff has to undergo
Pre-Institution Mediation and Settlement procedure as contemplated under
Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Since the plaint was
presented without undergoing Pre-Institution Mediation and Settlement, on
that ground, the plaint was returned with direction to comply with
mandatory procedure under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act,
2015. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has come before this
Court.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit
that the defendant supplied printers to the petitioners under an agreement,
which was not properly authorised by Board of Directors of the petitioner-
company and therefore, the agreement, which is the basis for supply of the
material itself is invalid. He further submitted that inspite of communication
by the plaintiff to the defendant terminating the invalid agreement and the
request made to the defendant to take back all the printers that were already
supplied which is occupying the plaintiff's premises, the defendant failed to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2026 11:40:13 am )
comply with such request. It is also stated by the plaintiff that the printers
supplied by the defendant about 127 in numbers are stored in the plaintiff's
premises. In view of the occupation of the valuable commercial space in the
plaintiff's premises by the printers supplied by the defendant, the plaintiff is
put to lot of inconvenience, hence, he prayed for interim mandatory
injunction. It is also stated that inspite of termination of the agreement and
its invalidity, the defendant continued to raise invoices against the
petitioner. Therefore, an injunction was sought for restraining the defendant
from raising invoices in future.
6. He further submitted that notwithstanding the fact, the suit
contemplates two urgent reliefs, the Commercial Court erroneously
returned the plaint to under go Pre-Institution Mediation and Settlement
procedure and therefore, the said order is liable to be set aside. In support
of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the
following judgments:-
(i) M/s.Ganga Complex vs. TSR Films Private Limited (Order made in
A.No.1576 of 2023 in C.S.(Comm.Div).No.24 of 2023, dated
24.03.2023).
(ii) Yamini Manohar vs. T.K.D.Keerthi reported in (2024) 5 SCC 815.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2026 11:40:13 am )
(iii) Dhanbad Fuels (P) Ltd. vs. Union of India reported in (2025) 9
SCC 424.
(iv) Novenco Building and Industry A/S vs. Xero Energy Engineering
Solutions Pvt. Ltd., reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2278.
7. It is pertinent to point out that the plaint was returned even
without numbering and without issuing summon to the respondent.
Therefore, this Court proceeds to dispose of the revision without issuing
notice to the respondent as it was not heard before passing of the impugned
order. Further, the plaint is only returned with direction to the petitioner to
comply with mandatory Pre-Institution Mediation and Settlement procedure
as contemplated under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and
there is no rejection of the plaint prayer. In such circumstances, we cannot
say that a valuable right accrued to the respondent and hence, it needs to be
heard in this revision.
8. Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 reads as
follows:-
“12A. Pre-Institution Mediation and Settlement—(1) A
suit, which does not contemplate any urgent interim relief
under this Act, shall not be instituted unless the plaintiff
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2026 11:40:13 am )
exhausts the remedy of pre-institution mediation in accordance
with such manner and procedure as may be prescribed by rules
made by the Central Government.
(2) The Central Government may, by notification,
authorise the Authorities constituted under the Legal Services
Authorities Act, 1987 (39 of 1987), for the purposes of pre-
institution mediation.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Legal
Services Authorities Act, 1987, the Authority authorised by the
Central Government under sub-section (2) shall complete the
process of mediation within a period of three months from the
date of application made by the plaintiff under sub-section (1):
Provided that the period of mediation may be extended
for a further period of two months with the consent of the
parties:
Provided further that, the period during which the
parties remained occupied with the pre-institution mediation,
such period shall not be computed for the purpose of limitation
under the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963).
(4) If the parties to the commercial dispute arrive at a
settlement, the same shall be reduced into writing and shall be
signed by the parties to the dispute and the mediator.
(5) The settlement arrived at under this section shall
have the same status and effect as if it is an arbitral award on
agreed terms under sub-section (4) of section 30 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996).”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2026 11:40:13 am )
9. A close reading of the above said provision would make it clear
that it refers about two classes of suits namely (i) suits which contemplate
urgent interim orders, (ii) suits which do not contemplate urgent interim
orders. The mandate under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act,
2015, with regard to the Pre-Institution Mediation is applicable only to the
suits which do not contemplate any urgent interim orders. However, in
respect of other class of suits namely the suits which contemplate urgent
interim relief, Pre-Institution Mediation is not required.
10. The expression 'contemplate any urgent relief' under Section 12A
(1) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 was considered by me in
M/s.Ganga Complex case cited supra, wherein it was observed as follows:-
“17. Even under the Code of Civil Procedure, suits
filed against Government are treated as separate class of suits.
Section 80(1) of CPC mandates no suit shall be instituted against
the Government until the expiration of two months next after
notice in writing has been delivered to or left at the office of
appropriate Officer of the Government. Section 80(2) carves an
exception to Section 80(1) of CPC. It allows filing of suit when
urgent or immediate relief against the Government are sought
for, with the leave of the Court, without serving any notice as
required by Section 80(1)of CPC. Therefore, as far as Section 80
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2026 11:40:13 am )
of CPC is concerned, if the plaintiff in his wisdom contemplated
a need for an interim relief he cannot straightaway file a suit by
making averments to that effect. He has to obtain leave from the
Court for filing suit for interim relief without issuing mandatory
notice under Section 80(1)of CPC. However under Section 12A
of Commercial Courts Act, no such leave from the Court has
been insisted upon, if the plaintiff wants to file a suit with urgent
interim relief. Therefore, Section 80 of CPC is more stringent
than Section 12A of Commercial Courts Act. The Commercial
Courts Act permits the plaintiff to institute a suit which does
contemplate any urgent interim relief without exhausting the
remedy of pre-institution mediation. It does not insist upon any
leave from the Court. The need for urgent interim relief is left
to the wisdom of the plaintiff and hence whenever on the basis of
the averments found in the plaint and the affidavit filed in
support of such urgent interim relief a need for urgent interim
relief is prima facie established the suit shall be treated as the
one which contemplates urgent interim relief. Therefore, the
burden of showing need for urgent interim relief on the plaintiff
is very light and if there are averments supporting urgent interim
relief certainly the suit can be treated as the one belonging to the
class of the suit, which contemplates urgent interim relief. On
the other hand, under CPC, the plaintiff who is in need of urgent
or immediate relief against the Government, has to obtain a
leave from the Court to dispense with the mandatory notice
under Section 80(1). Therefore, under CPC, the question
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2026 11:40:13 am )
whether the suit belongs to a class of suits which requires urgent
or immediate relief is left to the wisdom of the Court.
18. Hence, the role of the Court in deciding the question,
whether the suit belongs to a class of suits which requires urgent
interim relief is very very limited under Section 12A of
Commercial Courts Act. Therefore, when a plaintiff comes up
with a prayer for urgent interim relief, the same shall be treated
as a suit belonging to the class of suits which contemplates
urgent interim relief, unless, the urgent interim relief sought for
is so illusory and camouflage to avoid mandatory procedure of
pre-institution mediation and settlement. The legislature in its
wisdom thought it is not necessary to direct the plaintiff to get
leave of the Court to file a suit without exhausting pre-institution
mediation procedure. Therefore, if the plaintiff makes necessary
averments in the plaint and in the affidavit filed in support of the
interim relief and satisfy the Court about existence of a need for
urgent interim relief, the same is sufficient and Court need not
go into the question on merits, whether the interim relief sought
for by the plaintiff is legally tenable.”
11. The scope of the power available to Court while considering the
genuineness of the urgent relief sought for by the plaintiff was explained by
the Apex Court in Yamini Manohar case cited supra, the relevant
observation reads as follows:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2026 11:40:13 am )
“10. We are of the opinion that when a plaint is filed
under the CC Act, with a prayer for an urgent interim relief,
the commercial court should examine the nature and the
subject matter of the suit, the cause of action, and the prayer
for interim relief. The prayer for urgent interim relief should
not be a disguise or mask to wriggle out of and get over Section
12A of the CC Act. The facts and circumstances of the case
have to be considered holistically from the standpoint of the
plaintiff. Non-grant of interim relief at the ad-interim stage,
when the plaint is taken up for registration/admission and
examination, will not justify dismissal of the commercial suit
under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code; at times, interim relief is
granted after issuance of notice. Nor can the suit be dismissed
under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code, because the interim
relief, post the arguments, is denied on merits and on
examination of the three principles, namely, (i) prima facie
case, (ii) irreparable harm and injury, and (iii) balance of
convenience. The fact that the court issued notice and/or
granted interim stay may indicate that the court is inclined to
entertain the plaint.
11. Having stated so, it is difficult to agree with the
proposition that the plaintiff has the absolute choice and right
to paralyse Section 12A of the CC Act by making a prayer for
urgent interim relief. Camouflage and guise to bypass the
statutory mandate of pre-litigation mediation should be
checked when deception and falsity is apparent or established.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2026 11:40:13 am )
The proposition that the commercial courts do have a role,
albeit a limited one, should be accepted, otherwise it would be
up to the plaintiff alone to decide whether to resort to the
procedure under Section 12A of the CC Act. An ‘absolute and
unfettered right’ approach is not justified if the pre-institution
mediation under Section 12A of the CC Act is mandatory, as
held by this Court in Patil Automation.
12. The words ‘contemplate any urgent interim relief’ in
Section 12A(1) of the CC Act, with reference to the suit, should
be read as conferring power on the court to be satisfied. They
suggest that the suit must “contemplate”, which means the
plaint, documents and facts should show and indicate the need
for an urgent interim relief. This is the precise and limited
exercise that the commercial courts will undertake, the
contours of which have been explained in the earlier
paragraph(s). This will be sufficient to keep in check and
ensure that the legislative object/intent behind the enactment of
section 12A of the CC Act is not defeated.”
12. While considering the scope of the power available to the Court
under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 with regard to the
contemplation of interim relief, the Apex Court in Dhanbad Fuels (P) Ltd.,
case cited supra, observed as follows:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2026 11:40:13 am )
“52. Thus, it becomes clear from a perusal of the
aforesaid decision in Yamini Manohar that the test under
Section 12A is not whether the prayer for the urgent interim
relief actually comes to be allowed or not, but whether on an
examination of the nature and the subject-matter of the suit and
the cause of action, the prayer of urgent interim relief by the
plaintiff could be said to be contemplable when the matter is
seen from the standpoint of the plaintiff. Further, what is also
to be kept in mind by the courts is that the urgent interim relief
must not be merely an unfounded excuse by the plaintiff to
bypass the mandatory requirement of Section 12A of the 2015
Act.”
13. In Novenco Building and Industry A/S case cited supra, the
Apex Court observed as follows:-
“20. The legal test distilled from the aforesaid decisions
for the purposes of rejection of the plaint and for adjudication
of interim relief can be culled out as follows:
(i) Section 12A mandatorily requires pre-institution
mediation for commercial suits, non-compliance of
which would ordinarily render the plaint institutionally
defective.
(ii) A plaintiff can be exempted from the requirement of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2026 11:40:13 am )
Section 12A only when the plaint and the documents
attached with it clearly show a real need for urgent
interim intervention. A wholesome reading of the plaint
and the material annexed to the plaint ought to disclose
the need for urgent relief.
(iii) The court must look at the plaint, pleadings and
supporting documents to decide whether urgent interim
relief is genuinely contemplated. The court may also
look for immediacy of the peril, irreparable harm, risk
of losing rights/assets, statutory timelines, perishable
subject-matter, or where delay would render eventual
relief ineffective.
(iv) A proforma or anticipatory prayer for urgent relief used
as a device to skip mediation will be ignored and the
court can require the parties to comply with Section
12A of the Act.
(v) The court is not concerned with the merits of the urgent
relief, but if the relief sought seems to be plausibly
urgent from the standpoint of the plaintiff the court can
dispense with the requirement under Section 12A of the
Act.”
14. A close scanning of the above decisions would make it clear that
whenever an urgent interim prayer is sought for by the plaintiff and the suit
is filed without exhausting the Pre-Institution Mediation procedure, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2026 11:40:13 am )
Court has to see whether there is a real contemplation of urgent relief in the
stand point of view of the plaintiff based on the subject matter of the suit and
cause of action. The Court is not concerned with the merits of the urgent
relief sought for but the relief sought for must be plausibly urgent from the
stand point of view of the plaintiff.
15. In the case on hand, it was clearly pleaded by the plaintiff that
inspite of termination of the contract, the defendant continued to supply the
printers, raise invoices and storing of the printers in the plaintiff's
commercial space creates lot of inconvenience for it as valuable space of the
plaintiff is eaten away by the goods supplied by the defendant inspite of the
termination of the agreement. Therefore, the plaintiff seeks two urgent
reliefs, one is for interim mandatory injunction directing the defendant to
remove the goods supplied by it and other one is for prohibitory injunction
restraining the defendant from raising invoices. Whether the termination of
agreement pleaded by the petitioner is legally sustainable and whether
interim reliefs sought for by the plaintiff are acceptable to the Court on
merits, these are all the questions to be decided later, after numbering of the
suit and recording of evidence, if necessary.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2026 11:40:13 am )
16. Before numbering the suit, as explained by the Apex Court, the
Commercial Court is expected to go through the pleadings of the plaintiff
and come to the conclusion, whether the contemplation of interim relief is
real in the stand point of view of the plaintiff.
17. As mentioned earlier, the plaintiff in its pleading clearly
explained the difficulties faced by it due to the continuous supply of the
printers, storing of the printers supplied by the defendant in the commercial
space of the plaintiff's premises and the continuous raising of the invoices by
the respondent, therefore, we cannot say that the interim relief sought for by
the plaintiff is a camouflage to bypass the mandatory Pre-Institution
Mediation procedure contemplated under Section 12A of the Commercial
Courts Act, 2015. The urgent reliefs sought for by the plaintiff appear to be
real in the stand point of view of the plaintiff based on its averment in its
pleadings. Therefore, the Trial Court committed an error in returning the
plaint with direction to undergo mandatory Pre-Institution Mediation and
settlement procedure. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the Trial
Court is set aside and the Principal Commercial Court, Egmore, Chennai is
directed to number the plaint, if it is otherwise in order and proceed with
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2026 11:40:13 am )
suit in accordance with law.
18. Since this order is passed before numbering of the suit and
without hearing respondent/defendant, this Court is hasten to add that the
order passed in this civil revision petition will not come in the way of the
defendant raising an objection regarding the non-compliance of procedure
under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. In case, after
entering appearance, the respondent/defendant files any application for
rejection of the plaint, complaining non-compliance of Section 12A of the
Commercial Courts Act, 2015, the same shall be considered on its own
merits by giving adequate opportunity to both the parties, without being
influenced by anything said in this order.
19. With this clarification, the Civil Revision Petition stands allowed
as indicated above. No costs. Consequently, the connected civil
miscellaneous petitions are closed.
27.02.2026
Index : Yes
Speaking order : Yes
Neutral Citation : Yes
dm
To
The Principal Commercial Court,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2026 11:40:13 am )
Egmore, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2026 11:40:13 am )
S.SOUNTHAR, J.
dm
27.02.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2026 11:40:13 am )
