Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Divya A. Nichani vs Dipti D. Palchi on 12 February, 2026
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO. 10453 OF 2024)
DIVYA A. NICHANI APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
DIPTI D. PALCHI & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)
W I T H
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO. 10943 OF 2024)
O R D E R
Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 10453 of 2024
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant is said to have lent a total of Rs. 12.5 lakhs,
in three separate transactions of Rs. 6 lakhs, Rs. 5 lakhs, and Rs.
1.5 lakhs, to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and their company, i.e.,
respondent No. 3, for which she was approached by some family
friends. Respondent No. 2 is stated to have executed three
promissory notes in the appellant’s favour for repayment of the
above-mentioned loan amount, along with interest at the rate of 2%
per month. The respondents thereafter failed to repay the loan,
prompting the appellant to serve a legal notice on them on
14.01.2023.
3. The appellant, in December 2023, came to know that the private
respondents were actively planning to sell the property of the
respondent No.3-company, which was likely to seriously prejudice
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
NITIN TALREJA
Date: 2026.02.20
the appellant’s claim for recovery. She, accordingly, filed a suit
19:56:49 IST
Reason:
for recovery of the loan amount before the Commercial Court,
1
Chennai, along with an application for attachment of the subjectproperty under Order 38 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
(“CPC”). The Commercial Court however dismissed the aforementioned
application and returned the suit on the ground of non-compliance
of pre-litigation mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial
Courts Act, 2015 (“CC Act”) and with the finding that, in the facts
of the case, the interim relief sought was too excessive to be
granted ex-parte. The aggrieved appellant approached the High Court
seeking revision of the said order, but her revision petition has
also been dismissed vide the impugned order, giving rise to the
instant appeal.
4. Notice was issued by this Court on 14.05.2024. As per the
office report, the respondents have been duly served but have not
entered appearance.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused
the record.
6. There can, indeed, be no quarrel that Section 12A of the CC
Act, which contemplates pre-institution mediation, is mandatory in
nature and has to be complied with before a party files the
commercial suit. The fact that respondent No. 3 Company was
indulging in the disposal of its assets to allegedly defeat the
appellant’s right to recovery, per se, may not be a standalone
ground to bypass Section 12A of the CC Act. The view taken by the
Trial Court, to that extent, seems to be legally correct.
7. However, while examining the non-compliance of Section 12A, we
2
are inclined to take notice of the events that have transpired
during the pendency of this case since 2024. The objection that the
respondents raised before the Courts below necessarily indicates
that they would have been willing to go for mediation. On the other
hand, despite being duly served, they have not chosen to appear
before us and make any such prayer. This inaction on the part of
the respondents leads us to draw an inference that the objective of
the respondents in raising the plea of non-compliance of Section
12A of the CC Act was only a dilatory tactic to defeat the
appellant’s claim embodied by the recovery suit. A party that seeks
compliance with Section 12A must exhibit its willingness to go for
mediation continuously, till the mediation process reaches its
logical conclusion. The conduct of the respondents, we are
constrained to observe, suggests otherwise.
8. The facts being so, we consider it appropriate to invoke our
powers under Article 142 of the Constitution and hold that the
mandatory pre-litigation mediation under Section 12A of the CC Act
shall be deemed to have failed in the present case. That being so,
there seems to be no other legal impediment to pursuing the suit
for recovery filed by the appellant. Consequently, the instant
appeal is allowed. The orders dated 05.02.2024 of the Commercial
Court, Chennai, and that of the High Court dated 15.03.2024 are
hereby set aside, and COSSR No.06/2024 is restored to its original
file and number before the Commercial Court, Chennai, which is
accordingly directed to proceed with the matter in accordance with
law.
3
9. In case the respondents do not enter appearance upon
restoration of the suit, the Commercial Court will issue a fresh
notice to them. Similarly, the deemed compliance of Section 12A of
the Act shall not be an impediment for referring the parties to a
post-institution mediation, if considered appropriate by the
Commercial Court. If that is the case, the Commercial Court may
refer the matter to the local mediation centre and explore the
possibility of amicable settlement before it proceeds to decide the
suit on merits. Ordered accordingly.
Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 10943 of 2024
10. Leave granted.
11. The instant matter has arisen out of the order dated
15.03.2024 passed by the Madras High Court, whereby the Civil
Revision Petition preferred by respondent Nos.1 to 4 was allowed
and the plaint in Commercial Original Suit No.21/2022 has been
rejected on the ground that there was no urgency pleaded therein to
circumvent the mandate of Section 12A of the CC Act.
12. The above-stated suit was filed by the appellant for recovery
of money from the respondent Nos.1 to 4, along with application for
urgent interim relief. The said respondents moved an application
under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, seeking rejection of the plaint
primarily for non-compliance of the requisites under Section 12A.
Though the Trial Court dismissed that application, the same has
been allowed by the High Court in revisional jurisdiction, vide the
impugned judgment.
4
13. The aggrieved appellant–plaintiff has approached this Court
through the instant appeal.
14. During the pendency of these proceedings, the parties are
stated to have amicably resolved their commercial dispute, and a
Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated 28.12.2025 has been
executed between them. A photostat copy of the MoU, along with a
formal application seeking disposal of all the proceedings between
the parties, has also been placed on record. The salient features
of the settlement are that the appellant–Finance Company has agreed
to accept a lump sum amount of Rs.30 lakhs towards all the claims
of outstanding loan repayment. That amount of Rs.30 lakhs has been
paid by respondent Nos.1 to 4 through RTGS on 24.12.2025.
15. In this view of the matter, when the parties have already
settled the dispute and such settlement has been executed, the
instant appeal has been rendered infructuous and is, thus, disposed
of accordingly. The suit for recovery filed by the appellant
already stands terminated vide the impugned order. Any other
litigation pending between the parties arising out of the same
transaction also stands disposed of.
16. Counsel for the appellant-plaintiff, at this stage, points out
that the appellant is entitled to a refund of the court fee paid
while filing the above-stated suit for recovery. In this regard, we
grant liberty to the appellant-plaintiff to move an application
before the District Court, Namakkal, which in turn, is directed to
consider the appellant’s request sympathetically and after issuing
notice to the Collector/Revenue Authority concerned, thereafter
5
pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. Ordered
accordingly.
……………………..CJI
(SURYA KANT)
……………………..J.
(JOYMALYA BAGCHI)
NEW DELHI;
FEBRUARY 12, 2026.
6
ITEM NO.13 COURT NO.1 SECTION XII
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 10453/2024
[Arising out of impugned judgment and order dated 15-03-2024 in CRP
No. 856/2024 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras]
DIVYA A. NICHANI Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
DIPTI D. PALCHI & ORS. Respondent(s)
(IA No. 108148/2024 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT)
WITH
SLP(C) No. 10943/2024 (XII)
(IA No. 112904/2024 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT, IA No. 112903/2024 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. and IA
No. 63523/2025 – INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT)
Date : 12-02-2026 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOYMALYA BAGCHI
For Petitioner(s): Mr. Ashutosh Nagar, AOR
Mr. Arvind Srevatsa, Adv.
Mr. S. Santanam Swaminadhan, Adv.
Ms. Abhilasha Shrawat, Adv.
Mr. Kartik Malhotra, Adv.
Mrs. Aarthi Rajan, AOR
For Respondent(s): Mr. Siddhartha Iyer, AOR
Mr. Rakesh Sharma R., AOR
Mr. R. Sowmyanarayanan, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 10453 of 2024
1. Leave granted.
7
2. The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
3. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand closed.
Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 10943 of 2024
4. Leave granted.
5. The appeal has been rendered infructuous and is disposed of in
terms of the signed order.
6. Pending application(s), if any, including application for
intervention/impleadment, shall stand closed.
(NITIN TALREJA) (PREETHI T.C.)
ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
(Signed order is placed on the file)
8
