Monetary Claims Alone Do Not Bar Urgent Relief Exception To Pre-Institution Mediation: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court on August 5 ruled that seeking monetary relief along with specific performance, declarations, and injunctions does not, by itself, mean that a commercial suit is only about compensation.

It also does not mean that the suit cannot genuinely require urgent interim relief, an exception to the requirement of pre-institution mediation under Section 12-A(1) of the Commercial Courts Act.

“The fact that a plaintiff seeks consequential monetary reliefs, in addition to equitable and injunctive reliefs, does not, by itself, justify the conclusion that the suit is one involving only compensable monetary claims or that it does not genuinely contemplate urgent interim relief within the meaning of Section 12-A(1) of the CC Act,” the court observed.

A division bench of Justice R.I. Chagla and Justice Farhan P. Dubash set aside the commercial court's December 9, 2025 order rejecting High Point Supply Company LLC's suit.

The commercial court had rejected the plaint for non-compliance with the pre-institution mediation requirement.

High Point, a US-based delivery company, had an exclusive distribution agreement with Agati Healthcare Private Limited for its product in North America until June 2026. High Point alleged that Agati breached the arrangement by supplying the product to Glanbia and later terminating the agreement.

High Point filed the suit seeking specific performance, injunctions, a declaration and damages. Agati moved under Order VII Rule 11(d) for rejection of the plaint, arguing that High Point had not shown genuine urgency to bypass pre-institution mediation.

The court disagreed with the commercial court's view that the interim relief plea was merely a routine attempt to bypass Section 12-A. Reading the plaint as a whole, it found that High Point had pleaded a continuing breach of its exclusivity rights and a factual basis for seeking immediate protection.

“Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, we are unable to concur with the conclusion reached by the Trial Court that the Appellant sought to invoke the exception contained in Section 12-A(1) of the CC Act merely by incorporating a routine prayer for interim relief,” the court observed.

The court also distinguished between examining whether the Section 12-A exception applied and deciding the interim application itself. At the Order VII Rule 11(d) stage, the enquiry was jurisdictional.

The issue was whether the plaint, documents, and surrounding circumstances disclosed a bona fide factual foundation for urgent interim relief, rather than whether High Point would ultimately obtain an injunction.

The delay between Agati's termination notice and the institution of the suit also did not, by itself, make the urgency claim illusory. High Point had pointed to the time taken to obtain an expert opinion on Colorado law, prepare the pleadings, have them executed and notarised in the US, and send them to India for institution. The court held that the chronology was relevant but could not, by itself, justify rejection of the plaint.

The court did not decide whether High Point was ultimately entitled to interim protection. That question remains with the commercial court, which must consider the interim application on its own merits.

The bench set aside the December 9, 2025, order and restored the commercial suit. It directed the commercial court to decide High Point's interim plea in accordance with law. 

For Appellant: Simil Purohit, Senior Counsel a/w Ameya Gokhale, Kriti Kalyani, Chintan Gandhi, Abhishek Mookherjee i/b Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas & Co. 

For Respondent: Shanay Shah a/w Vivek Sharma a/w A. A. Kapadia i/b Sujit Lahoti and Associates