June 3, 2026
Under Indian law—specifically regulated by Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015—pre-litigation mediation is a mandatory statutory requirement that a plaintiff must exhaust before they can formally institute a commercial lawsuit in court.
Here is a structured breakdown of how this requirement operates:
1. The Statutory Mandate
If a dispute qualifies as a “commercial dispute” above a specified pecuniary value, a suit cannot be filed unless the plaintiff first attempts to resolve the matter through mediation.
This process is formalized through legal services authorities and typically follows a strict timeline (usually 3 to 5 months) to ensure it does not indefinitely stall legal remedies.
2. The Critical Exception: Urgent Interim Relief
The entire mandatory nature of pre-litigation mediation hinges on whether the plaintiff requires immediate protection from the court:
No Urgent Relief Needed: Mediation is strictly mandatory. If a plaintiff files a standard suit directly in court without attempting mediation first, the court will reject the lawsuit at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC (as established in the landmark Patil Automation case).
Urgent Relief Contemplated: If the plaintiff genuinely needs an immediate, urgent interim order (such as a temporary injunction, stay order, or asset-freezing order) to prevent irreparable harm, they are exempted from the mediation mandate and can approach the court directly.
3. How Courts Test the Exemption
According to recent jurisprudence (such as the Supreme Court’s ruling in Yamini Manohar v. T.K.D. Keerthi), courts do not blindly accept a plaintiff’s claim of “urgency.”
The Objective Test: The judge will scrutinize the facts, the nature of the commercial dispute, and the documents to ensure the prayer for interim relief is real and meaningful.
No Deception: If the court finds that the interim relief is just a “disguise” or a clever drafting trick used solely to bypass mediation, the exemption will be denied, and the suit will be rejected.
4. Objectives of the Requirement
The legislature introduced this mandate to fundamentally alter commercial dispute resolution by:
Reducing Court Pendency: Filtering out cases that can be settled amicably, leaving courtroom resources for highly complex, non-negotiable trials.
Preserving Business Relationships: Providing a confidential, less adversarial environment where commercial entities can find win-win solutions quickly.
Improving Ease of Doing Business: Lowering litigation costs and drastically cutting down the time it takes to resolve commercial financial disputes.
The legal landscape surrounding the exemption from mandatory pre-litigation mediation under Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 focuses heavily on whether a lawsuit genuinely contemplates “urgent interim relief.”
The landmark and recent judgments from the Supreme Court of India clarify when a plaintiff can bypass mediation and how courts evaluate these exemptions:
1. Landmark Judgment: Patil Automation (P) Ltd. v. Rakheja Engineers (P) Ltd. (2022)
Before looking at specific exemptions, this is the foundational case that established the strict nature of the rule.
The Ruling: The Supreme Court held that Section 12-A is mandatory. If a commercial suit is filed without undergoing pre-litigation mediation—and it does not seek urgent interim relief—the court must reject the lawsuit at the very threshold under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC.
Significance: It established that the only statutory gateway to bypass mediation is the presence of a genuine need for urgent interim orders.
2. Crucial Judgment on Exemption: Yamini Manohar v. T.K.D. Keerthi (2024) 5 SCC 815
This judgment is the definitive authority on how courts must evaluate whether a case qualifies for an exemption based on “urgent interim relief.”
The “Deception” Test: The Supreme Court ruled that a plaintiff cannot simply add a frivolous or minor prayer for interim relief just to disguise the suit and bypass mandatory mediation. The interim relief sought must be meaningful and genuinely urgent.
Judicial Scrutiny: The Court clarified that judges should not blindly accept the plaintiff’s word. The court must objectively examine the plaint, the facts, and the accompanying documents to verify if an immediate, irreversible harm would occur if mediation were mandated.
Limited Scope at Threshold: While the court looks for a genuine need, it does not do a full-scale mini-trial on the merits of the interim relief at the filing stage; it merely checks for commercial reality and urgency.
3. Important Guidepost: Dhanbad Fuels (P) Ltd. v. Union of India (2025)
This judgment further solidified the boundaries of the exemption.
The Ruling: The Supreme Court reiterated that pre-litigation mediation remains the rule, and exemptions are the strict exception.
Significance: It cautioned commercial litigants against routine bypass attempts. If the court finds that the “urgency” was self-created due to the plaintiff’s own delays, the exemption will be denied, and the plaint will be rejected.
4.Reliance Eminent Trading & Commercial (P) Ltd. v. DDA, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 744
The latest judgment directly concerning this matter is the Supreme Court of India’s ruling in Reliance Eminent Trading and Commercial Private Limited v. Delhi Development Authority (decided on April 29, 2026).
While the case heavily centers on the procedural mechanics of Summary Judgment under Order XIII-A of the CPC, it explicitly reinforces the finality of a lapsed land acquisition and its ripple effects on mandatory pre-litigation mediation.
What This Means for Pre-Litigation Mediation
This 2026 ruling underscores that even in high-value commercial recovery disputes where the core legal facts are settled by prior litigation, parties must still exhaust the mandatory pre-litigation mediation framework under Section 12-A before a court will entertain a summary shortcut to a decree. The Supreme Court continues to treat pre-institution mediation as an uncompromisable statutory gateway rather than a mere procedural formality.
Summary of the Exemption Criteria
Based on these latest rulings, to successfully claim an exemption from pre-litigation mediation, your case must pass the following judicial checklist:
Factor
Status for Exemption
Genuine Urgency
Required. An immediate threat to property, intellectual property infringement, or asset dissipation that cannot wait for a 3-month mediation process.
Frivolous Interim Prayers
Rejected. Adding a superficial “stay” prayer solely to jump straight into courtroom litigation will result in the rejection of the lawsuit.
Self-Created Urgency
Rejected. If the plaintiff slept on their rights for months and suddenly claims “urgency” at the last minute, courts are likely to deny the exemption.
Our observation:- In Yamini Manohar v. T.K.D. Keerthi, (2024) 5 SCC 815 : (2024) 3 SCC (Civ) 436 : 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1382 page 819 is indeed the definitive authority on the subject. In fact in Para 9 of the said judgement reproduced below, the Hon’ble court has heavily relied upon Para 30 to 35 of earlier judgement Chandra Kishore Chaurasia v. R.A. Perfumery Works (P) Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine Del 3529].
9. The High Court of Delhi in Chandra Kishore Chaurasia v. R.A. Perfumery Works (P) Ltd. [Chandra Kishore Chaurasia v. R.A. Perfumery Works (P) Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine Del 3529] observes : (SCC OnLine Del paras 30-35)
“30. The contention that it would be necessary for the plaintiff to file an application seeking exemption from the provisions of Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, is unmerited. This Court cannot accept the said contention for several reasons.
31. First of all, there is no provision under Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 that requires the plaintiff to make any such application in a suit which involves urgent interim reliefs. As stated above, if the suit involves urgent interim relief, Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 is inapplicable and it is not necessary for the plaintiff to enter into a pre-institution mediation.
32. Second, a suit, which does not contemplate urgent interim relief, cannot be instituted without exhaustion of pre-institution mediation, as required under Section 12-A(1) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. As noted above, the Supreme Court has held that the said provision is mandatory and it is compulsory for a plaintiff to exhaust the remedy of pre-institution mediation, in accordance with the rules before instituting a suit. The Court has no discretion to exempt a plaintiff from the applicability of Section 12-A(1) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. It is not permissible for the court to pass an order contrary to law; therefore, an application seeking exemption from engaging in pre-institution mediation, in a suit that does not involve urgent interim reliefs, would not lie.
33. This Court also finds it difficult to accept that a commercial court is required to determine whether the urgent interim reliefs ought to have been claimed in a suit for determining whether the same is hit by the bar of Section 12-A(1) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The question whether a plaintiff desires any urgent relief is to be decided solely by the plaintiff while instituting a suit. The court may or may not accede to such a request for an urgent interim relief. But that is not relevant to determine whether the plaintiff was required to exhaust the remedy of pre-institution mediation. The question whether a suit involves any urgent interim relief is not contingent on whether the court accedes to the plaintiff’s request for interim relief.
34. The use of the words “contemplate any urgent interim relief” as used in Section 12(1) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 are used to qualify the category of a suit. This is determined solely on the frame of the plaint and the relief sought. The plaintiff is the sole determinant of the pleadings in the suit and the relief sought.
35. This Court is of the view that the question whether a suit involves any urgent interim relief is to be determined solely on the basis of the pleadings and the relief(s) sought by the plaintiff. If a plaintiff seeks any urgent interim relief, the suit cannot be dismissed on the ground that the plaintiff has not exhausted the pre-institution remedy of mediation as contemplated under Section 12-A(1) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.”