The Bombay High Court examined whether the suit filed by the plaintiff, Ekta Housing Pvt. Ltd., against Shraddha Shelters Pvt. Ltd. adhered to Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, which mandates pre-institution mediation in non-urgent cases. The court analyzed the concept of “urgent interim reliefs” and determined whether the plaintiff's claims of urgency were genuine or merely an attempt to bypass statutory requirements.

1. Facts of the Case

   • Parties Involved: Ekta Housing Pvt. Ltd. (Plaintiff) filed a suit against Shraddha Shelters Pvt. Ltd. (Defendant No. 1) and others for recovery of outstanding dues under a Development Management Agreement (2017) and a Deed of Guarantee (2018).
   • Claim: The plaintiff sought recovery of ₹35.03 crores along with interest and requested interim reliefs, including asset attachment and restraining defendants from alienating properties.
   • Issue: The plaintiff bypassed pre-institution mediation under Section 12-A, claiming urgency.

2. Arguments

   • Defendants: Asserted no genuine urgency existed, as the plaintiff delayed taking legal action for three years after initial demand emails in 2020. They argued that compliance with Section 12-A was mandatory.
   • Plaintiff: Contended that urgency arose from the defendants’ alleged intent to alienate assets, risking the plaintiff's ability to recover dues. They argued the suit contemplated urgent reliefs, exempting it from pre-mediation requirements.

3. Legal Provisions Discussed

   • Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015: Mandates pre-institution mediation unless the suit involves urgent interim relief.
   • Order VII Rule 11 CPC: Allows rejection of plaints failing to meet legal requirements.
   • Relevant precedents such as Patil Automation Pvt. Ltd. vs. Rakheja Engineers Pvt. Ltd. and Yamini Manohar vs. T.K.D. Keerthi.

4. Ratio Decidendi

   • The court clarified that "urgent interim relief" must be evident from the plaint and documents. If the claim for urgency is deceptive or lacks substantive grounds, non-compliance with Section 12-A results in plaint rejection.

5. Court’s Decision

   • The court reviewed the pleadings and concluded whether the urgency claimed was justified. A holistic view of the plaint was necessary, avoiding excessive scrutiny or determination of merits.

1. Background and Claims (Paras 1-2)

• Summary suit for recovery under the Development Management Agreement and Deed of Guarantee, with claims exceeding ₹35 crores.
• Plaintiff alleged urgency due to defendants’ potential alienation of assets.

2. Arguments on Urgency (Paras 3-15)

• Defendants emphasized a lack of genuine urgency and highlighted the plaintiff’s delay from 2020 to 2023.
• Plaintiff argued urgency based on recent refusals and threats of alienation (July 2023).

3. Analysis of Compliance with Section 12-A (Paras 16-40)

• Reference to precedents affirming the mandatory nature of Section 12-A.
• Court assessed whether the suit’s circumstances justified bypassing mediation.

4. Legal Principles Reaffirmed (Paras 41-42)

• The inquiry is limited to the plaint’s averments and the need for immediate interim relief.
• Evidence of urgency must be clear and not merely a tactic to avoid pre-mediation.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

1. Section 12-A, Commercial Courts Act, 2015: Pre-institution mediation requirement.
2. Order VII Rule 11 CPC: Rejection of plaints for procedural non-compliance.
3. Order XXXVIII Rule 5 CPC: Conditions for attachment before judgment.

Subjects:

Commercial Litigation, Pre-Institution Mediation, Urgent Reliefs,
Commercial Disputes, Mediation, Civil Procedure Code, Interim Reliefs