Bombay High Court Refuses To Refer Kalyani Family Feud To Mediation

The Bombay High Court has recently refused to refer to mediation a dispute arising out of a 1994 family arrangement involving members of the Kalyani family in proceedings where Hikal Limited is also a party, holding that mediation under the Mediation Act, 2023 cannot be forced upon an unwilling party.

Justice Rajesh S. Patil rejected the request made by Sugandha Hiremath and her husband, Jaidev. Hiremath to refer their dispute with Babasaheb Neelkanth Kalyani to mediation, observing that there was no possibility of settlement between the parties after multiple failed attempts at resolving disputes within the Kalyani family.

“The Mediation Act, 2023 does not provide for any mandatory mediation nor does it confer any power on the court to order mediation without consent of all parties. The procedure prescribed under the Act is for a mediation agreement to be executed in writing to submit to mediation. Thus, the mediation contemplated by the Mediation Act is not compulsory but a consensual mediation,” the Court observed.

The dispute arises from a 1994 family arrangement, enforcement of which has been sought by Sugandha Hiremath and Jaidev Hiremath through a suit for specific performance before the High Court.

The Court noted that multiple litigations between family members were already pending, including suits filed before the Pune District Court in 2012 and 2025, partition proceedings initiated by the Hiremaths' children, probate petitions, and older property disputes pending before courts at Karad and Satara.

The judgment records that earlier attempts at mediation had also failed. In proceedings before the Supreme Court, disputes among family members were referred to mediation through senior mediator Sriram Panchu by orders dated February 19, 2018 and May 7, 2018. The mediation process ultimately failed, following which the Supreme Court directed the proceedings to continue on merits on October 22, 2019.

During hearings before the High Court on March 27, April 15 and April 16, 2026, the Court repeatedly suggested mediation and granted liberty to the parties to exchange settlement proposals.

However, Babasaheb Kalyani opposed mediation, contending that news reports regarding settlement discussions had caused discomfort and triggered calls from investors. He also argued that despite opportunities granted by the Court, Sugandha and Jaidev Hiremath had not exchanged any meaningful settlement proposal.

The Court noted that despite another opportunity being granted to exchange settlement proposals, no proposal was exchanged between the parties.

"Even then on 26 April, 2026 as the matter was adjourned, I granted parties one more chance without prejudice to their rights and contentions, to exchange their settlement proposal. However, on the next date of hearing, after 12 days, no such proposal was exchanged between the parties,” the Court said.

Sugandha and Jaidev Hiremath had argued that Babasaheb Kalyani's consent was not necessary for referring the matter to mediation and that even a small possibility of settlement justified such a reference.

Rejecting the contention, the Court analysed the scheme of the Mediation Act, 2023, the amended Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act to hold that compulsory pre-institution mediation has been specifically provided for certain commercial disputes but not for ordinary civil suits such as the present case.

Referring to the Karnataka High Court's decision in Smt. Amalapooh Mary v. Sri V. Ravindra, the Court observed that the ruling predated the Mediation Act, 2023 and subsequent amendments to the CPC and commercial courts framework, and therefore would not govern the present case.

Accordingly, the Court rejected the request to refer the dispute to mediation and directed that the matter proceed on merits.