The Supreme Court has clarified the parameters for determining when courts may exempt parties from the mandatory pre-institution mediation requirement under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, particularly in cases involving requests for urgent interim relief in intellectual property infringement matters.

The bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Alok Aradhe held that courts must assess the plaintiff’s perspective while deciding whether the claim of urgency is genuine. The Court emphasized that it is not required to assess the merits of the interim relief sought; rather, if the plaintiff’s plea for urgency appears plausible on its face, the requirement of pre-litigation mediation may be dispensed with.

Reiterating its observations in Dhanbad Fuels v. Union of India (2024) SCC OnLine SC 579, the Court noted that every request for urgent relief cannot be dismissed as a tactic to bypass mediation. Instead, courts must examine the plaint, pleadings, and accompanying documents to determine whether the urgency claimed is bona fide and arises from the plaintiff’s viewpoint.

“The test under Section 12A,” the Court observed, “is not whether the interim relief is ultimately granted, but whether—looking at the nature of the dispute, subject matter, and cause of action—the request for urgent interim relief appears reasonably contemplated by the plaintiff. However, mere pretextual or speculative pleas of urgency meant to avoid mediation should not be entertained.”

To guide future cases, the Court distilled the governing principles as follows:

1. Mandatory Requirement: Section 12A mandates pre-institution mediation for commercial disputes; non-compliance generally renders the plaint defective.

2. Exception for Urgency: Exemption may be granted only if the plaint and documents disclose a clear and genuine need for immediate interim relief.

3. Assessment Parameters: Courts must evaluate the plaint and materials to verify the existence of imminent peril, irreparable harm, statutory timelines, risk to rights or assets, or perishable subject matter.

4. Avoiding Abuse: Generic or anticipatory pleas of urgency designed to evade mediation must be disregarded.

5. Plaintiff’s Perspective: The court’s focus should remain on whether the urgency seems plausible from the plaintiff’s standpoint, not on whether the relief will ultimately succeed.

Cause Title: Novenco Building and Industry A/S v. Xero Energy Engineering Solutions Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.