Pre-Institution Mediation Under Section 12A Commercial Courts Act Is Mandatory; Suits Filed Violating This Liable To Be Rejected: Supreme Court

Pre-Institution Mediation Under Section 12A Commercial Courts Act Is Mandatory; Suits Filed Violating This Liable To Be Rejected

Case: Patil Automation Private Limited and others versus Rakheja Engineers Private Ltd.

Coram: Justices KM Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy

Case No.: SLP (C)No. 14697 of 2021

Court Observation: “We declare that Section 12A of the Act is mandatory and hold that any suit instituted violating the mandate of Section 12A must be visited with rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11. This power can be exercised even suo moto by the court.

We, however, make this declaration effective from 20.08.2022 so that concerned stakeholders become sufficiently informed.

Still further, we however direct that in case plaints have been already rejected and no steps have been taken within the period of limitation, the matter cannot be reopened on the basis of this declaration.

Still further, if the order of rejection of the plaint has been acted upon by filing a fresh suit, the declaration of prospective effect will not avail the plaintiff. Finally, if the plaint is filed violating Section 12A after the jurisdictional High Court has declared Section 12A mandatory also, the plaintiff will not be entitled to the relief”.

“Exhausting pre-institution mediation by the plaintiff, with all the benefits that may accrue to the parties and, more importantly, the justice delivery system as a whole, would make Section 12A not a mere procedural provision. The design and scope of the Act, as amended in 2018, by which Section 12A was inserted, would make it clear that Parliament intended to give it a mandatory flavour. Any other interpretation would not only be in the teeth of the express language used but, more importantly, result in frustration of the object of the Act and the Rules”

“At this juncture, it must be immediately noticed that the Law-giver has, in Section 12A, provided for pre- institution mediation only in suits, which do not contemplate any urgent interim relief. Therefore, pre- institution mediation has been mandated only in a class of suits. We say this for the reason that in suits which contemplate urgent interim relief, the Law-giver has carefully vouch-safed immediate access to justice as contemplated ordinarily through the courts. The carving out of a class of suits and selecting them for compulsory mediation, harmonises with the attainment of the object of the law. The load on the Judges is lightened. They can concentrate on matters where urgent interim relief is contemplated and, on other matters, which already crowd their dockets”

“A win-win situation resulting from assigning a greater role to the parties themselves, with no doubt, a spirit of accommodation represents a better and what is more in the era of docket explosion, the only meaningful choice. The realisation has been growing over a period of time, that formal court rooms, long drawn-out proceedings, procedural wrangles, mounting and crippling costs, delay, which never wanes but only increases with the day that at least, in certain categories of cases, mediation can be the way out. It, undoubtedly, requires a complete change in the mindset. The change in approach, undoubtedly, can be achieved only if the litigants become aware of its benefits in comparison with the great disadvantage in waiting in the serpentine queue for the day of reckoning to arrive in a court of law. The role of the Bar is vital in taking mediation forward.

With increase in population and a skewed Judge-population ratio and a huge spiralling of litigation in the courts, it is logical, just and imperative, to attempt and persevere in out of the box thinking. We can no longer afford to remain in the past. A clean break with the past is urgently needed. What was a mere writing on the wall as early as in the last decades of the previous century has become the harsh reality. It is important that the courts also adapt to the changing times. At least when the Parliament has decided to move ahead, it becomes the court’s duty not to greet it with undue scepticism. It becomes necessary to fulfil the intention of the Parliament by realising the true role of judiciary”.

Previous Posts

Reservations For Differently Abled Should Be Implemented In Aided School Appointments: Kerala High Court

Husband’s Repeated Taunts, Comparisons With Other Women Qualify As Mental Cruelty: Kerala High Court

Workman Who Consents For Contractual Engagement Can’t Turn Around & Seek Benefit U/S 25F Of Industrial Disputes Act: Gujarat High Court

“Legal Regime Apropos Sports Administration Has To Be Implemented Fully”: Delhi High Court Places Indian Olympic Association Under CoA

When There Are Contradictory Dying Declarations, Which One To Accept? Supreme Court Answers “Difficult Question”

Keywords

Pre-Institution Mediation, Commercial Courts Act