Delhi High Court – Orders
Vardhman Trusteeship Pvt Ltd vs Smt Jyotsana Dubey & Anr on 24 February, 2026
Author: Subramonium Prasad
Bench: Subramonium Prasad
$~59
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(COMM) 177/2026, I.A. 5022/2026, I.A. 5023/2026, I.A.
5024/2026, I.A. 5026/2026, I.A. 5027/2026
VARDHMAN TRUSTEESHIP PVT LTD .....Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Yashvardhan, Mr. Devesh
Mohan, Mr. Gyanendra Shukla, Mr.
Pranav Das, Advs.
versus
SMT JYOTSANA DUBEY & ANR. .....Defendants
Through: Mr. Ankit Jain, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Mihir Gujjewar, Mr. Parth
Gautam, and Ms. Divyanshu Rathi,
Advocates for D-1.
Mr. Abhinav Garg, Mr. Deepanshu
Latka, Ms. Mahima Ahuja, Advocates
for D-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
ORDER
% 24.02.2026
I.A. 5025/2026
1. This application under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act,
2015 [“CC Act“] has been filed on behalf of the Plaintiff seeking exemption
from undergoing pre-institution mediation proceedings.
2. Shorn of unnecessary details, facts leading to the filing of the present
Plaint are as under:
a) The Plaintiff is a company incorporated under the Companies Act,
1956. The Plaintiff is engaged in the business of providing trusteeshipCS(COMM) 177/2026 Page 1 of 19
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/03/2026 at 20:31:33
services such as Debenture Trusteeship, Security Trusteeship, Share
Pledge Trusteeship, Escrow Agency, Safe Keeping Agent,
Securitization Trustee, Alternative Investment Fund and Facility
Agent etc to its customers.
b) Defendant No.1 is the owner of entire ground floor portion,
admeasuring 241.66 sq. yards, consisting of three bedrooms along
with three bathrooms, one drawing-cum-dining room, family lounge,
one kitchen, front and back courtyard along with 25% freehold right
in the land underneath the Property Bearing No.56, Block E, E.P.
Railway Refugees Rehabilitation House Building Cooperative Society
Ltd., presently known as Greater Kailash Enclave-II, New Delhi
[“Subject Property”] which has been mortgaged by Defendant No.1
by deposit of title deeds in favour of the Plaintiff.
c) Defendant No.2 is a company registered under the Companies Act,
1956, engaged in the business of providing technology solutions in
the information and communication technology space such as
deploying secure Enterprise Networks, Data Centre Builds, Audio-
Video Integration Solutions, Command and Control Centres etc. that
consolidates, integrates and enables management of information for
mission critical applications.
d) It is stated that Defendant No.2 had borrowed money by issuing
debentures and the Plaintiff had given a loan to Defendant No.2.
Defendant No.1’s property has been used as security for this
borrowing.
e) Material on record indicates that the Subject Property was first
allotted to one Smt. Shakuntla Bhasin by executing a Perpetual Sub-
CS(COMM) 177/2026 Page 2 of 19
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/03/2026 at 20:31:33
Lease. It is stated that after the demise of Smt. Shakuntla Bhasin, the
Subject Property devolved upon her three sons, namely, Vijay Bhasin,
Avinash Bhasin and Sanjeev Bhasin and after devolution, the Subject
Property was mutated in their name. It is stated that subsequently, the
aforesaid lease was converted from leasehold into freehold vide a
Conveyance Deed dated 06.09.2006 executed by Delhi Development
Authority. It is stated that, thereafter, the Subject Property was sold to
Defendant No.1 herein for a total sale consideration of Rs.45,00,000/-.
A meeting of Board of Directors of Defendant No. 2 was held on
12.10.2023 wherein it was resolved that financial assistance to the
tune of Rs. 50,00,00,000/- is required by way of Debenture Trust
Deed and Private Placement Offer cum Application Letter. It is stated
that on 23.10.2023, a Debenture Trustee Appointment Agreement
dated 23.10.2023 [“Agreement No.1”] was executed between the
Plaintiff and Defendant No.2 for appointment of the Plaintiff as the
Debenture Trustee. In accordance with Agreement No.1, Defendant
No.2 issued 5000 unlisted, senior, secured, redeemable, taxable,
transferable, non-convertible debentures having a face value of
Rs.1,00,000/- each. These debentures were subscribed to by one
Vivriti Asset Management Pvt. Ltd. [“Debenture Holders”]. On
23.10.2023, the following documents were executed:
i. Debenture Trustee Appointment Agreement: Appointed the
Plaintiff as the Debenture Trustee;
ii. Private Placement Cum Application Letter (PPOAL-1):
Outlined the terms for the private placement of the debentures;
iii. Deed of Hypothecation: Created a charge over specificCS(COMM) 177/2026 Page 3 of 19
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/03/2026 at 20:31:33
hypothecated properties;
iv. Irrevocable Power of Attorney: Executed by Defendant No. 2 in
favour of the Plaintiff to effectuate the security interest under
the Deed of Hypothecation;
v. Share Pledge Agreement: Executed by Mr. Krishan Kumar
Girdhar and Mr. Sandeep Arya, pledging 1,30,000 and 1,20,000
shares respectively;
vi. Irrevocable Power of Attorney (Share Pledge): Executed by Mr.
Girdhar and Mr. Sandeep Arya to enable the Plaintiff to
exercise rights under the Share Pledge Agreement;
vii. Non-Disposal Undertaking: An agreement by Mr. Krishan
Kumar Girdhar and Mr. Sandeep Arya not to transfer their
shares until the final settlement date;
viii. Demand Promissory Note: A formal promise by Defendant No.
2 to repay the Rs. 50,00,00,000 plus interest;
ix. Letter of Continuity: Established the Demand Promissory Note
as a continuing security;
x. Deed of Personal Guarantee: An unconditional and irrevocable
joint and several guarantee provided by Mr. Krishan Kumar
Girdhar and Mr. Sandeep Arya;
xi. Additional Security Letter dated March 28, 2025: Sent by
Defendant No. 2 undertaking to create a first-ranking mortgage
on the Subject Property.
f) Subsequently, on 01.10.2024, the Board of Directors of Defendant
No.2 resolved that a further financial assistance of Rs.27 crores is
required. In pursuance of the same another Debenture Trust Deed
CS(COMM) 177/2026 Page 4 of 19
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/03/2026 at 20:31:33
dated 10.10.2024 [“Agreement No.2”] and Private Placement-Cum-
Application Letter dated 10.10.2024 were executed between Plaintiff
and Defendant No.2 whereunder 2700 unlisted, senior, secured,
redeemable, taxable, transferable, non-convertible debentures having
a face value of Rs.1,00,000/- each were issued to Debenture Holders.
On 10.10.2024, the following documents were executed:
i. Debenture Trustee Appointment Agreement: Re-confirming the
Plaintiff’s role for the new issue;
ii. Private Placement Cum Application Letter (PPOAL-2): For the
issuance of 2,700 additional debentures;
iii. Deed of Hypothecation: Specifically for the DTD-2 securities;
iv. Irrevocable Power of Attorney: Executed by Defendant No. 2
for the Agreement No.2 security interests;
v. Amended and Reinstated Share Pledge Agreement: Pledged
additional shares (1,10,000 from Mr. Krishan Kumar Girdhar
and 1,30,000 from Mr. Sandeep Arya);
vi. Amended and Reinstated Non-Disposal Undertaking: Extended
the non-transfer agreement for the new pledged shares;
vii. Demand Promissory Note and Letter of Continuity: Formal
repayment promise for the additional Rs. 27,00,00,000;
viii. Deed of Personal Guarantee: New guarantee from Mr. Krishan
Kumar Girdhar and Mr. Sandeep Arya for the Agreement No.2
obligations;
g) It is stated that the fair market value of the Subject Property was
calculated at Rs. 3,91,44,000/-. It is stated that there were breaches in
respect of Agreement Nos.1 & 2 and the same was communicated toCS(COMM) 177/2026 Page 5 of 19
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/03/2026 at 20:31:33
Defendant No. 2, Mr. Krishan Kumar Girdhar and Mr. Sandeep Arya
vide Event of Default Notice dated 04.10.2025 sent by the Debenture
Holders. According to the Plaintiff, another Event of Default Notice
dated 07.10.2025 was sent by the Plaintiff to the Defendant Nos.2,
Mr. Krishan Kumar Girdhar and Mr. Sandeep Arya, indicating the
breaches in respect of Agreement Nos.1 & 2 and calling upon
Defendant No.2 to pay an amount of Rs.22,07,59,584/- and Rs.
18,87,09,605/- respectively within 15 days. It is stated that personal
guarantee was also invoked against all the guarantors calling upon
them to pay the monies. According to the Plaintiff an email was
received on 17.01.2026 by Defendant No.2 seeking time to resolve
the issue, while unequivocally admitting the liability of the Defendant
No. 2. Thereafter, the present Plaint has been filed by the Plaintiff
with the following prayers:
“a. Grant a usual preliminary mortgage decree of
the Subject Property in favour of the Plaintiff and
against the Defendant No.1 for the recovery of Rs.
3,91,44,000/- (Rupees Three Crores Ninety One
Lakh and Forty Four Thousand Only) or such
other amount as may be determined upon
valuation of the Subject Property;
b. Upon grant of usual preliminary decree in
terms of Prayer (a) above, pass a final decree
thereafter in favour of the Plaintiff and against
the Defendant No.1 for sale of the mortgaged
Subject Property;
c. Grant a decree in favour of the Plaintiff and
against the Defendant No. 1 declaring that the
Defendant No. 1 shall be permanently barredCS(COMM) 177/2026 Page 6 of 19
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/03/2026 at 20:31:33
from exercising her right to redeem the Subject
Property;
d. Grant an order in favour of the Plaintiff and
against the Defendant(s) awarding costs of the
present suit;
e. Any other relief that this Hon‟ble Court deems
just and proper may also be awarded to the
plaintiffs.”
3. Along with the Plaint, the Plaintiff has also filed the present
application being I.A. 5025/2026 seeking exemption from undergoing pre-
institution mediation proceedings. The entire application is being reproduced
as under:
“1. That the Plaintiff has filed the accompanying suit
against the Defendants inter alia seeking declaration
of mortgage decree, recovery of money, sale of the
mortgaged property and permanent injunction. The
contents of the accompanying suit may kindly be read
as a part and parcel of the present application and the
same is not being repeated herein for the sake of
brevity.
2. That the Plaintiff and Defendants have been trying
to resolve the present dispute and have already
exchanged detailed communications with regards to
the same, despite which the Defendants continue to
deprive the Plaintiff of their rightful claim to the
admitted outstanding default amount in an illegal,
unlawful, improper manner and without any reasons or
justification. Such nefarious designs and act of not
paying the admitted outstanding amount clearly show
that there is no intention of Defendants to resolve the
present dispute and the scope of mediation in the
present matter does not exist. The Plaintiff is prayingCS(COMM) 177/2026 Page 7 of 19
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/03/2026 at 20:31:33
for urgent reliefs from this Hon‟ble Court which is
imperative to stop the illegal acts of the Defendants.
3. That the language of Section 12A of the Commercial
Courts Act, 2015 (“Commercial Courts Act“) clearly
states that the requirement of institution of Pre-
Institution Mediation Proceedings is mandatory in case
a suit “does not contemplate any urgent interim
relief”. Since the Plaintiff, in the present suit, has filed
an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the
Code of Civil Procedure 1908 seeking urgent ad
interim / interim reliefs, Pre-Institution Mediation
proceedings are not required to be undertaken, and the
present proceedings can be taken up by this Hon‟ble
Court. Therefore, as per the language of the Section-
12A of the Commercial Courts Act, the Pre Institution
Mediation proceedings under Section 12A of the
Commercial Courts Act, is not required to be
undertaken and the present proceedings can be taken
up by this Hon‟ble Court.
4. That the Plaintiff has a very good prima facie case
and will suffer irreparable loss and injury in case the
prayer of the Plaintiff is not granted.
5. That the instant application is being made bona fide
and in the interest of justice.
4. The Plaintiff has also filed an application being I.A. 5022/2026 under
Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of CPC with the following prayers:
“a. Pass an ex-parte ad interim order for interim
injunction restraining the Defendants, including their
directors, partners, subsidiaries, affiliates, officers,
employees, servants, agents, representative, dealers
and anyone acting for and on their behalf from
alienating, creating third party rights and interest and
creating any third party encumbrance of whatsoeverCS(COMM) 177/2026 Page 8 of 19
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/03/2026 at 20:31:33
nature in the Subject Property during the pendency of
the suit;
b. Alternatively, appoint a receiver in order to protect
the Plaintiff’s interest in the Subject Property and to
ensure that the right of the Plaintiff in the Subject
Property, including but not limited to the sale of
Subject Property, guaranteed to it under law are duly
protected during the pendency of the suit;
c. Pass such other and further orders as this Hon’ble
Court may deem fit in the facts of the case and in the
interest of justice.”
5. The short question which arises for consideration before this Court is
whether the Plaintiff must be exempted from undergoing pre-institution
mediation proceedings or not.
6. Learned Counsel appearing for the Plaintiff states that urgent
injunction is required as the Defendants would create third party interest on
the Subject Property. He places reliance upon a judgment passed by the
Apex Court in Novenco Building & Industry v. Xero Energy Engineering
Solutions (P) Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2278 and more particularly
Paragraph Nos.21 to 25 of the said Judgment which read as under:
“21. Thus, the question whether a suit
„contemplates any urgent interim relief‟ needs to be
examined on the touchstone of the aforementioned
criteria. The issue which arises for consideration in
this appeal is whether a suit alleging continuing
infringement of patent and design rights, accompanied
by a prayer for interim injunction, can be said to
contemplate urgent relief within the meaning of Section
12A of the Act, notwithstanding certain delay in its
institution.
CS(COMM) 177/2026 Page 9 of 19
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/03/2026 at 20:31:33
22. The subject matter of the present action is
continuing infringement of intellectual property. Each
act of manufacture, sale, or offer for sale of the
infringing product constitutes a fresh wrong and
recurring cause of action. It is well settled in law that
mere delay in bringing an action does not legalise an
infringement and the same cannot defeat the right of
the proprietor to seek injunctive relief against the
dishonest user5. The appellant has pleaded that Xero
Energy, its former distributor, has dishonestly
appropriated its proprietary designs and patents to
manufacture and market identical fans under
deceptively similar name. The accompanying material
demonstrates that such infringing activity is continuing
and causing immediate and irreparable harm to the
appellant’s business reputation, goodwill and
proprietary rights.
23. From the standpoint of the appellant, each day
of continuing infringement aggravates injury to its
intellectual property and erodes its market standing.
The urgency, therefore, is inherent in the nature of the
wrong and does not lie in the age of the cause but in
the persistence of the peril. The court cannot be
unmindful of the fact that intellectual property disputes
are not confined to the private realm. When imitation
masquerades as innovation, it sows confusion among
consumers, taints the market place and diminishes
faith in the sanctity of the trade. The public interest,
therefore, becomes the moral axis upon which the
urgency turns. Therefore, the public interest element,
need to prevent confusion in the market and to protect
consumers from deception further imparts a colour of
immediacy to the reliefs sought.
24. The appellant’s prayer for injunction cannot be
characterised as mere camouflage to evade mediation.
It is a real grievance founded on the continuing nature
of infringement and irreparable prejudice likely to beCS(COMM) 177/2026 Page 10 of 19
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/03/2026 at 20:31:33
caused by the delay. The court must look beyond time
lag and evaluate the substance of the plea for interim
protection. The insistence of pre-institution mediation
in a situation of ongoing infringement, in effect, would
render the plaintiff remediless allowing the infringer to
continue to profit under the protection of procedural
formality. Section 12A of the Act was not intended to
achieve such kind of anomalous result.
25. The learned Single Judge as well as the
Division Bench of the High Court erred in construing
the test for urgent relief enumerated in Section 12A of
the Act, in as much as the courts have proceeded to
examine the entitlement of the appellant to urgent relief
based on the merits of the case rather than looking at
the urgency as is evident from the plaint and the
documents annexed thereto from the standpoint of the
plaintiff. The High Court has proceeded on the premise
that lapse of time between the appellant’s discovery of
infringement and filing of suit negated the element of
urgency. Such an approach, in our considered view, is
contrary to the principles laid down by the decisions of
this Court. The High Court has also failed to take into
account that the present action is one of the continuous
infringement of intellectual property.”
7. A perusal of the aforesaid paragraphs indicates that exemption under
Section 12A of CC Act must be granted when the Suit contemplates urgent
interim reliefs. In that case, the Apex Court dealt with a case of continuing
infringement of intellectual property and the Apex Court was of the opinion
that each act of manufacture, sale, or offer for sale of the infringing product
constitutes a fresh wrong and recurring cause of action which would warrant
urgent reliefs and therefore, exemption under Section 12A of CC Act was
granted.
CS(COMM) 177/2026 Page 11 of 19
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/03/2026 at 20:31:33
8. Similarly, the learned Counsel for the Plaintiff also places reliance
upon on a judgment passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Chandra
Kishore Chaurasia v. R A Perfumery Works (P) Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine
Del 3529 wherein this Court has observed as under:
“31. First of all, there is no provision under Section
12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 that requires
the plaintiff to make any such application in a suit
which involves urgent interim reliefs. As stated above,
if the suit involves urgent interim relief, Section 12A of
the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 is inapplicable and it
is not necessary for the plaintiff to enter into a pre-
institution mediation.
32. Second, a suit, which does not contemplate
urgent interim relief, cannot be instituted without
exhaustion of pre-institution mediation, as required
under Section 12A(1) of the Commercial Courts Act,
2015. As noted above, the Supreme Court has held that
the said provision is mandatory and it is compulsory
for a plaintiff to exhaust the remedy of pre-institution
mediation, in accordance with the rules before
instituting a suit. The Court has no discretion to
exempt a plaintiff from the applicability of Section
12A(1) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. It is not
permissible for the court to pass an order contrary to
law; therefore, an application seeking exemption from
engaging in pre-institution mediation, in a suit that
does not involve urgent interim reliefs, would not lie.
33. This Court also finds it difficult to accept that a
commercial court is required to determine whether the
urgent interim reliefs ought to have been claimed in a
suit for determining whether the same is hit by the bar
of Section 12A(1) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
The question whether a plaintiff desires any urgent
relief is to be decided solely by the plaintiff while
instituting a suit. The court may or may not accede toCS(COMM) 177/2026 Page 12 of 19
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/03/2026 at 20:31:33
such a request for an urgent interim relief. But that it
not relevant to determine whether the plaintiff was
required to exhaust the remedy of pre-institution
mediation. The question whether a suit involves any
urgent interim relief is not contingent on whether the
court accedes to the plaintiff’s request for interim
relief.
34. The use of the words “contemplate any urgent
interim relief” as used in Section 12(1) of the
Commercial Courts Act, 2015 are used to qualify the
category of a suit. This is determined solely on the
frame of the plaint and the relief sought. The plaintiff is
the sole determinant of the pleadings in the suit and the
relief sought.
35. This Court is of the view that the question
whether a suit involves any urgent interim relief is to
be determined solely on the basis of the pleadings and
the relief(s) sought by the plaintiff. If a plaintiff seeks
any urgent interim relief, the suit cannot be dismissed
on the ground that the plaintiff has not exhausted the
pre-institution remedy of mediation as contemplated
under Section 12A(1) of the Commercial Courts Act,
2015.”
9. In the opinion of this Court, the facts of the present case are
distinguishable from those involved in the judgments relied upon by the
learned Counsel for the Plaintiff.
10. The Apex Court in Yamini Manohar v. T.K.D. Keerthi, (2024) 5 SCC
815, while considering an application under Section 12A of the CC Act, has
observed as under:
“5. Section 12-A of the CC Act does not
contemplate leave of the court, as is clear from the
language and words used therein. Nor does theCS(COMM) 177/2026 Page 13 of 19
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/03/2026 at 20:31:33
provision necessarily require an application seeking
exemption. An application seeking waiver on account
of urgent interim relief setting out grounds and reasons
may allay a challenge and assist the court, but in the
absence of any statutory mandate or rules made by
the Central Government, an application per se is not
a condition under Section 12-A of the CC Act;
pleadings on record and oral submissions would be
sufficient.
6. The words used in Section 12-A of the CC Act are
— “A suit which does not contemplate any urgent
interim relief”, wherein the word “contemplate”
connotes to deliberate and consider. Further, the legal
position that the plaint can be rejected and not
entertained reflects application of mind by the court
viz. the requirement of “urgent interim relief”.
xxx
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 12-A 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 7 Rule 11
of the Code; at times, interim relief is granted after
issuance of notice. Nor can the suit be dismissed under
Order 7 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
CS(COMM) 177/2026 Page 14 of 19
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/03/2026 at 20:31:33
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.
xxx
12. The words “contemplate any urgent interim
relief” in Section 12-A(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 12-A of the CC Act is not defeated.”
(emphasis supplied)
11. It is pertinent to mention that the Apex Court in Patil Automation (P)
Ltd. v. Rakheja Engineers (P) Ltd., (2022) 10 SCC 1 has discussed the
mandatory nature of Section 12A of the CC Act. Relevant portion of the said
judgment reads as under:
“99.1. The Act did not originally contain Section
12-A. It is by amendment in the year 2018 that Section
12-A was inserted. The Statement of Objects and
Reasons are explicit that Section 12-A was
contemplated as compulsory. The object of the Act and
the Amending Act of 2018, unerringly point to at least
partly foisting compulsory mediation on a plaintiff who
does not contemplate urgent interim relief. The
provision has been contemplated only with reference toCS(COMM) 177/2026 Page 15 of 19
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/03/2026 at 20:31:33
plaintiffs who do not contemplate urgent interim relief.
The legislature has taken care to expressly exclude the
period undergone during mediation for reckoning
limitation under the Limitation Act, 1963. The object is
clear.
99.2. It is an undeniable reality that courts in India
are reeling under an extraordinary docket explosion.
Mediation, as an alternative dispute mechanism, has
been identified as a workable solution in commercial
matters. In other words, the cases under the Act lend
themselves to be resolved through mediation. Nobody
has an absolute right to file a civil suit. A civil suit can
be barred absolutely or the bar may operate unless
certain conditions are fulfilled. Cases in point, which
amply illustrate this principle, are Section 80CPC and
Section 69 of the Partnership Act.
99.3. The language used in Section 12-A, which
includes the word “shall”, certainly, goes a long way
to assist the Court to hold that the provision is
mandatory. The entire procedure for carrying out the
mediation, has been spelt out in the Rules. The parties
are free to engage counsel during mediation. The
expenses, as far as the fee payable to the mediator, is
concerned, is limited to a one-time fee, which appears
to be reasonable, particularly, having regard to the
fact that it is to be shared equally. A trained mediator
can work wonders.
99.4. Mediation must be perceived as a new
mechanism of access to justice. We have already
highlighted its benefits. Any reluctance on the part of
the Court to give Section 12-A, a mandatory
interpretation, would result in defeating the object and
intention of Parliament. The fact that the mediation
can become a non-starter, cannot be a reason to hold
the provision not mandatory. Apparently, the valueCS(COMM) 177/2026 Page 16 of 19
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/03/2026 at 20:31:33
judgment of the lawgiver is to give the provision, a
modicum of voluntariness for the defendant, whereas,
the plaintiff, who approaches the court, must,
necessarily, resort to it. Section 12-A elevates the
settlement under the Act and the Rules to an award
within the meaning of Section 30(4) of the Arbitration
Act, giving it meaningful enforceability. The period
spent in mediation is excluded for the purpose of
limitation. The Act confers power to order costs based
on conduct of the parties.
100. In the cases before us, the suits do not
contemplate urgent interim relief. As to what should
happen in suits which do contemplate urgent interim
relief or rather the meaning of the word “contemplate”
or urgent interim relief, we need not dwell upon it. The
other aspect raised about the word “contemplate” is
that there can be attempts to bypass the statutory
mediation under Section 12-A by contending that the
plaintiff is contemplating urgent interim relief, which
in reality, it is found to be without any basis. Section
80(2)CPC permits the suit to be filed where urgent
interim relief is sought by seeking the leave of the
court. The proviso to Section 80(2) contemplates that
the court shall, if, after hearing the parties, is satisfied
that no urgent or immediate relief need be granted in
the suit, return the plaint for presentation to the court
after compliance. Our attention is drawn to the fact
that Section 12-A does not contemplate such a
procedure. This is a matter which may engage
attention of the lawmaker. Again, we reiterate that
these are not issues which arise for our consideration.
In the fact of the cases admittedly there is no urgent
interim relief contemplated in the plaints in question.
xxx
CS(COMM) 177/2026 Page 17 of 19
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/03/2026 at 20:31:33
104. On the findings we have entered, the impugned
orders must be set aside and the applications under
Order 7 Rule 11 allowed. This would mean that the
plaints must be rejected. Necessarily, this would
involve the loss of the court fee paid by the plaintiffs in
these cases. They would have to bring a fresh suit, no
doubt after complying with Section 12-A, as permitted
under Order 7 Rule 13. Moreover, the declaration of
law by this Court would relate back to the date of the
Amending Act of 2018.”
12. The aforesaid judgment – Patil Automation (P) Ltd. (supra) has been
approved and quoted by the Apex Court in Dhanbad Fuels (P) Ltd. v. Union
of India, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1129 wherein the Apex Court has observed
as under:
“62. While giving prospectivity to its finding on the
mandatory nature of Section 12-A and the consequence
of rejection of plaint in cases of non-compliance, the
Court also observed that the prospective declaration
would not save the situation in certain categories of
cases which we have discussed in para 55 above.
However, it is not the case of the appellant that the
case at hand falls within the ambit of any of the
exceptions laid down in Patil Automation [Patil
Automation (P) Ltd. v. Rakheja Engineers (P) Ltd.,
(2022) 10 SCC 1 : (2023) 1 SCC (Civ) 545] .”
13. Applying the aforesaid law to the facts of the present case, the
application filed under Section 12A of the CC Act does not disclose any
urgent reliefs other than a bald/vague averment that third party rights would
be created on the subject property which already stands mortgaged.
Similarly, in the application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of CPC,
the only relief that has been sought for is that third party rights would be
CS(COMM) 177/2026 Page 18 of 19
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/03/2026 at 20:31:33
created on the Subject Property. In the opinion of this Court, this does not
constitute an urgency of such a nature which would persuade this Court
from granting exemption under Section 12A of the CC Act, more
particularly, when the Subject Property already stands mortgaged by the
Defendant No.1 in favour of the Plaintiff. Thus, the plaint does not
contemplate any urgent interim relief.
14. In view of the above, the Plaint is returned, along with all the pending
applications, with the liberty to the Plaintiff to first resort to pre-institution
mediation proceedings and then approach this Court by filing a Plaint.
15. The Application is disposed of.
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J
FEBRUARY 24, 2026
S. Zakir
CS(COMM) 177/2026 Page 19 of 19
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/03/2026 at 20:31:33