VANITA BATHLA Vs. SMT. SHASHI BAJAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed by the petitioner/defendant under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dtd. 7/8/2025 (hereinafter referred to as the "Impugned Order") passed by the trial Court in CS (COMM) 364/2023, whereby the trial Court has rejected the plea raised by the petitioner alleging the non-compliance of the mandatory requirement of pre-institution mediation under Sec. 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the 'the Act') before filing of the suit.

(2.) Learned Senior Counsels on behalf the petitioner have argued that as the respondent has failed to exhaust the mandatory remedy of pre-institution mediation under Sec. 12A of the Act, and also that the suit does not disclose any case of "urgent interim relief", so the plaint is liable to be rejected in accordance with law. The plaint in this respect is vague, non-specific, and a mere eyewash intended to circumvent the mandatory provisions of Sec. 12A of the Act. The application of the respondents seeking exemption from pre-institution mediation is still pending which shows that there is no "urgent interim relief" involved in the suit. It is further argued that vide order dtd. 15/4/2023, the plaint in the suit bearing no. Civ DJ No. 159/2020 was returned on the ground that the dispute constituted a commercial dispute and was, therefore, required to be instituted before the Commercial Court and Consequently, pre-institution mediation was mandatory before instituting the suit in the Commercial Court. Per Contra, learned Counsel for the respondent has argued that the trial Court has passed the impugned order after considering the material on record. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. The arguments of the petitioner are without any merit and the petition is liable to be dismissed.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. Record perused.