Madras High Court Directs Commercial Court To Number, Hear Suit Returned For Skipping Pre-Institution Mediation

The Madras High Court has recently directed a Commercial Court in Chennai to number a commercial suit that had been returned before numbering for failure to undergo pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The Court held that the plaint disclosed a case seeking “urgent interim relief."

Justice S. Sounthar observed that at the stage of numbering a plaint, the court's inquiry is limited to examining whether the suit plausibly seeks urgent interim relief. “Whether the termination of the agreement pleaded by the petitioner is legally sustainable and whether the interim reliefs sought for by the plaintiff are acceptable to the Court on merits, these are all the questions to be decided later, after numbering of the suit and recording of evidence, if necessary,” the court said.

The High Court was dealing with a civil revision petition filed by Aarthi Scans Private Limited, the plaintiff in the underlying commercial suit. The petition challenged an order dated February 3, 2026, passed by the Principal Commercial Court, Egmore, Chennai, which had returned the plaint before numbering the suit for non-compliance with the mandatory pre-institution mediation requirement under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act.

In the suit against Konica Minolta Business Solutions India Private Limited, the plaintiff sought a declaration that the commercial arrangement between the parties stood terminated on May 31, 2025. It also sought a declaration that certain agreements relied upon by the defendant were illegal, void, and unenforceable.

Along with the suit, the plaintiff filed applications seeking urgent interim relief. These included an interim mandatory injunction directing the defendant to remove 127 printers from its premises and an interim injunction restraining the defendant from raising further invoices.

Allowing the revision petition, the High Court observed that Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act creates two categories of commercial suits. One category consists of suits that contemplate urgent interim relief, while the other consists of suits which do not.

The Court said the requirement of pre-institution mediation applies only to the latter category.

It further clarified that the question of urgency must be assessed from the standpoint of the plaintiff. This assessment must be based on the nature of the dispute, the cause of action and the relief sought.

“The plaintiff in its pleading clearly explained the difficulties faced by it due to the continuous supply of the printers, storing of the printers supplied by the defendant in the commercial space of the plaintiff's premises and the continuous raising of the invoices by the respondent, therefore, we cannot say that the interim relief sought for by the plaintiff is a camouflage to bypass the mandatory Pre-Institution Mediation procedure,” the court observed.

Setting aside the Commercial Court's order, the High Court directed it to number the plaint if it was otherwise in order. It also directed the court to proceed with the suit in accordance with law.

The court, however, clarified that numbering of the suit would not prevent the defendant from subsequently raising an objection regarding non-compliance with Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act.