Delhi High Court – Orders
Pidilite Industries Limited vs Mr Rishi Talwar on 21 April, 2026
$~15
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(COMM) 339/2026
PIDILITE INDUSTRIES LIMITED .....Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Saurabh Kirpal, Sr. Advocate
with Mr. Ashish Jha, Mr. Gaurav Vutts, Mr.
Ayush Raj, Mr. Junaid Amir and Mr. Pranav
Sarthi, Advocates.
versus
MR RISHI TALWAR .....Defendant
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN
ORDER
% 21.04.2026
I.A. 8638/2026 (under Section 151 CPC on behalf of plaintiff for
exemption of lengthy list of dates and synopsis)
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. Application stands disposed of.
I.A. 8639/2026 (under Section 149 read with Section 151 CPC on behalf
of plaintiff seeking extension of time in depositing the requisite court
fee)
3. This is an application seeking extension of time to pay the deficient
court fee.
4. On instructions, Mr. Saurabh Kirpal learned Senior Counsel appearing
on behalf of the plaintiff submits that the deficient Court Fee has already
been paid. The statement is taken on record.
5. In view of the above statement, the application stands disposed of.
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 27/04/2026 at 20:51:32
I.A. 9645/2026 (under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act read
with Section 151 CPC on behalf of the plaintiff, seeking exemption from
institution of pre-litigation mediation)
6. By way of present application, plaintiff seeks exemption from pre-
litigation mediation.
7. It is stated in the application that the plaintiff is seeking urgent relief
of interim injunction against the defendant, under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and hence, the present application is
being filed by way of abundant caution, to seek express exemption from
conducting mediation with the defendant prior to the institution of the
present suit.
8. Mr. Kirpal submits that the plaintiff has sought interim relief in the
present suit and such relief should be seen from the stand point of the
plaintiff.
9. He submits that the plaintiff is seeking urgent interim relief and
therefore is constrained to file this application for exemption from pre-
litigation mediation as mandated under Section 12A of the Commercial
Courts Act, 2015.
10. He further submits that the present case involves an egregious and
calculated default by the defendant. The defendant not only failed to clear
the admitted outstanding liability but also deliberately closed the bank
account on which the three security cheques, amounting to
Rs.4,98,31,215.82/, were drawn.
11. He argues that the defendant’s conduct of seeking repeated extensions
via emails while simultaneously closing his bank accounts demonstrates a
clear intent to defraud the plaintiff.
12. He further argues that in case the urgent relief is not granted to the
plaintiff, there is a high possibility that the defendant would dissipate the
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 27/04/2026 at 20:51:32
goods of the plaintiff currently lying in the premise under the control of the
defendant.
13. To buttress his contentions, he places reliance of the decision of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s Patil Automation Private Limited & Ors. v.
Rakheja Engineers Private Limited, Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C)
No. 14697 of 2021 and decision of this Court in Upgrad Education Private
Limited v Intellipaat Software Solutions Private Limited, CS (COMM 132
of 2022).
14. At the outset, it would be apt to reproduce Section 12A of the Act
which reads as under:
“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
exhausts the remedy of preinstitution 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 (39 of 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, suchThis 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 27/04/2026 at 20:51:32
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).]”
15. The law regarding the mandatory nature of Section 12A and the
exceptions thereto is now well-settled. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Yamini Manohar vs. T.K.D. Keerthi, (2024) 5 SCC 815 held that while pre-
litigation mediation is mandatory, the Commercial Court must
independently apply its judicial mind to assess whether the suit contemplates
‘urgent interim relief’. The Court clarified that the urgency cannot be a mere
camouflage or an illusory plea drafted solely to bypass the statutory mandate
of mediation; rather, the Court must evaluate the nature of the commercial
dispute, the conduct of the parties, and the imminent threat to the plaintiff’s
rights to determine if the prayer for urgent interim relief is bona fide. The
relevant part of the decision reads as under:
“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 isThis 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 27/04/2026 at 20:51:32
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 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 12-A 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. 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 12-A of the CC Act. An “absolute and
unfettered right” approach is not justified if the pre-
institution mediation under Section 12-A of the CC Act is
mandatory, as held by this Court in Patil Automation [Patil
Automation (P) Ltd. v. Rakheja Engineers (P) Ltd., (2022) 10
SCC1:(2023) 1 SCC (Civ) 545]
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)
16. Having regard to the fact that the defendant’s conduct, especially the
deliberate closure of bank accounts to evade admitted liabilities and the
imminent threat of dissipating the goods currently under his control,
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 27/04/2026 at 20:51:32
demonstrates that the urgency pleaded by the plaintiff is bona fide and not a
mere camouflage designed to bypass the statutory mandate. Further, this
Court is also contemplating granting ad interim relief to the plaintiff in its
application numbered IA 8637/2026 under Order 39 rules 1 and 2 CPC read
with Section 151 CPC.
17. Therefore, in light of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Yamini Manohar (supra), the plaintiff has successfully
established that the suit contemplates urgent interim relief, thereby
warranting dispensation from the statutory mandate of Section 12A of the
Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
18. In view of the above, present application is allowed and the plaintiff is
exempted from initiating pre-institution mediation.
19. The application is disposed of.
CS(COMM) 339/2026
20. The plaint be registered as suit.
21. On filing of process fee, summons be issued to the defendant by all
permissible modes.
22. The summons shall indicate that written statement must be filed
within thirty days from the date of receipt of summons. The defendant shall
also file an affidavit of admission/denial of the documents filed by the
plaintiffs, failing which the written statement shall not be taken on record.
23. The plaintiffs are at liberty to file replication thereto within thirty days
after filing of the written statement. The replication shall be accompanied by
affidavit of admission/denial in respect of the documents filed by the
defendant, failing which the replication shall not be taken on record.
24. It is made clear that any unjustified denial of documents may lead to
an order of costs against the concerned party.
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 27/04/2026 at 20:51:32
25. Any party seeking inspection of documents may do so in accordance
with the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018.
26. List before the learned Joint Registrar for completion of service,
pleadings, admission/denial of documents and marking of exhibits on
10.07.2026.
27. List before Court thereafter on a date to be assigned by the learned
Joint Registrar.
I.A. 8637/2026 (under Order XXXIX rules 1 and 2 CPC on behalf of
plaintiff, seeking injunction, attachment of bank accounts and maintain
status quo till disposal of the Commercial Civil Suit)
28. Issue notice to the defendant, by all permissible modes.
29. The present application has been filed seeking interim reliefs detailed
in the prayer clause.
30. It is stated that the applicant/plaintiff is a public limited company
while the non-applicant/defendant is the sole proprietor of a proprietorship
concern namely ‘Diamond Agencies’. The defendant is the authorised
stockist of the applicant/plaintiff in New Delhi.
31. It is stated in the application that the defendant has provided bank
account and security cheques for being the ‘Authorised Stockist’ of the
Plaintiff at New Delhi. The defendant has been making payments to
applicant/ Plaintiff from some time through various bank accounts other
than the designated bank account provided by the defendant to plaintiff.
32. It is further stated that from mid-2025 onwards, the defendant failed
to make payments with regard to goods and invoices raised by plaintiff on
the defendant. The plaintiff continuously followed up and reminded the
defendant that he is to clear the outstanding invoices for goods supplied by
plaintiff concerning various divisions. Despite this the defendant has
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 27/04/2026 at 20:51:32
miserably failed to pay and clear the payments against invoices, by giving
frivolous reasons best known to the non-applicant/defendant.
33. It is also stated that due to continuous defaults, the plaintiff presented
three security cheques. However, in a move demonstrating mala fides, all
the three cheques i.e.- (i) Cheque No. 33240652 for Rs. 3,12,44,474.77/-
(hereinafter referred as ‘Cheque No. 1’); (ii) Cheque No. 33161172 for Rs.
35,22,211.38/- (hereinafter referred as ‘Cheque No. 2’) and (iii) Cheque No.
33161166 for Rs. 1,50,64,529.67/- (hereinafter referred as ‘Cheque No. 3’),
were dishonoured and returned with the remark ‘account closed’ on
21.02.2026 and 23.02.2026. The total amount of the three security cheques
amount to Rs.4,98,31,215.82/-
34. Mr. Saurabh Kirpal, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of
the applicant/plaintiff submits that business relationship between the parties
is governed by an updated Authorised Stockist Undertaking (hereinafter
after referred as ‘Undertaking’) dated 20.06.2025, which is stated to be
digitally signed. As per the terms of the said undertaking the defendant was
mandated to maintain sufficient post-dated cheques with the plaintiff
towards any default.
35. He draws the attention of this Court to Clause 5.6 of the
‘Undertaking’ wherein the defendant irrevocably authorized the plaintiff to
fill in the cheque date and amount due as per the Books of Accounts, and to
present the same for payment towards all outstanding amounts. The said
clause is reproduced below:
“5.6 I hereby irrevocably and unconditionally authorise PIL to
complete the cheques issued by me and fill in the cheque date and
amount due as per the Books of Accounts (under all the codes)
maintained by PIL and further irrevocably authorize PIL to
present the said cheque(s) for payment and ensure to pay all the
outstanding amounts including for the price of the goods sold byThis 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 27/04/2026 at 20:51:32
PIL to us, applicable debit note applied by PIL in case of delays or
deficiencies in payments such as Cheque and NACH dishonour or
rejections, RTGS delays, PDC non-availability, non tendering of
requisite statutory form etc. or any such sums which are due as per
PIL Policies and Guidelines.”
36. He further places reliance on Clause 5.10 of the ‘Undertaking’ which
expressly provides a contractual remedy to the plaintiff to secure its goods.
The said clause reads thus:
“5.10 I shall be solely responsible for paying PIL for the price of
goods/ products purchased and I am aware that in case of default
of payment and/or non-payment, PIL shall be entitled to levy
bank charges and take the stock back as per policy.”
(emphasis supplied)
37. To buttress his contentions, Mr. Kirpal draws attention of the Court to
e-mails dated 07.10.2025, 08.11.2025 and 27.12.2025, whereby the
defendant has acknowledged the defaults and also confirmed that he would
commence the payments of the same, but despite such confirmation, no
payment was made by the defendant.
38. He argues that the closure of the designated bank account is a
calculated precipitative action to frustrate the plaintiff’s legitimate dues. He
expresses a reasonable apprehension that the defendant is attempting to
fritter away the remaining assets, inventory, and the sale proceeds of the
stock through other operational bank accounts, which would cause severe
financial losses and render the execution of any future decree impossible.
39. Having heard the contentions of the learned counsel for the plaintiff
and upon perusal of the record, this Court prima facie finds that the
defendant has repeatedly and unequivocally admitted to the outstanding
liability in multiple written communications.
40. The deliberate closure of the bank account on which the security
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 27/04/2026 at 20:51:32
cheques were drawn, despite continuous written reassurances of payment,
reflects a prima facie intent to evade financial obligations and defeat the
plaintiff’s claims. Furthermore, Clause 5.10 of the ‘Undertaking’ vests the
plaintiff with the contractual right to reclaim its stock in the event of such a
default.
41. In light of the aforementioned circumstances, this Court is of the view
that the plaintiff has established a prima facie case for the grant of ad-
interim relief. The balance of convenience also tilts in favour of the plaintiff.
I am also of the view that irreparable injury is likely to be caused to the
plaintiff, if defendant is not restrained from disposing of the stock.
42. Consequently, till the next date of hearing, to protect the plaintiff’s
rights enshrined under Clause 5.10 of the ‘Undertaking’, the defendant, his
agents, or representatives are restrained from alienating, transferring,
disposing of, or creating any third-party rights over the products, stock-in-
trade, and stock of goods supplied by the plaintiff, currently lying at the
defendant’s premises, godowns, or depots.
43. Provisions of Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC be complied with qua the
defendant within three weeks from today and affidavit of compliance be
filed within a week thereafter.
44. Reply be filed within two weeks. Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed
before the next date.
45. Re-notify on 20.07.2026.
I.A. 10147/2026 (under Order 26 rule 9 read with Section 151 CPC on
behalf of the plaintiff, seeking appointment of Local Commissioner)
46. By way of the present application, the plaintiff has prayed for
appointment of Local Commissioner for examination, inspection, search and
seizure of all the plaintiff’s products which are in possession and are lying
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 27/04/2026 at 20:51:32
with the defendant having packaging/label/wrappers and or other materials
having plaintiff’s mark.
47. Issue notice the defendant, by all permissible modes.
48. However, Mr. Kirpal urges the Court that the Local Commissioner
may be appointed for the limited purpose of inventorising the goods lying in
the premises which is under the lock and key of the defendant.
49. In view of the limited prayer articulated, and regard being had to the
facts and circumstances of the case noted herein above, this Court is of the
view that the Local Commissioner needs to be appointed for the purpose
articulated by Mr. Kirpal.
50. Accordingly, Mr. Ujjwal Tyagi, Advocate [Mob. 9354181841] is
appointed as Local Commissioner to visit the following two premises
mentioned in the instant application wherein the goods manufactured by the
plaintiff are lying, and inventorize the same:
i. MR. RISHI TALWAR Sole Proprietor,
DIAMOND AGENCIES,
Basement, House No. 64,
Samrat Enclave, Pitampura,
North West Delhi, Delhi- 110034
GSTIN: 07AABPT7714R1ZZ
Email: [email protected]ii. MR. RISHI TALWAR Sole Proprietor,
DIAMOND AGENCIES
75-A, Samrat Enclave, Pitampura,
North-West Delhi- 110034
Mobile- 9810412122
PAN- AABPT7714R
51. He may take photographs or mark the stock lying there for the
purpose of identification, and make them as part of his report.
52. The remuneration of the Local Commissioner is quantified at
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 27/04/2026 at 20:51:32
Rs.2,50,000/-, besides out of pocket expenses, which shall be paid by the
plaintiff to the Local Commissioner in advance.
53. The SHO of the concerned police station is also directed to provide
police aid to the local commissioner, if the situation so warrants.
54. Before visiting the premises mentioned in the instant application, the
Local Commissioner shall intimate the learned counsel for the plaintiff, who
shall cooperate with the Local Commissioner to enable him to execute
commission.
55. Let Local Commissioner file his report within three weeks.
56. Let reply to the application be filed by the defendant within a period
of four weeks. Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed before the next date.
57. List on 20.07.2026.
VIKAS MAHAJAN, J
APRIL 15, 2026/jg
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 27/04/2026 at 20:51:32
