The Calcutta High Court has upheld an earlier order exempting Berger Paints India Limited from undergoing pre-litigation mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, in a commercial recovery suit for approximately ₹1.01 crore filed against GPHP Holdings Private Limited. The dispute stemmed from unpaid invoices for paints and coatings supplied between February and June 2024, and was accompanied by a plea for urgent interim relief to prevent the transfer of the debtor’s factory land.
In its judgment dated 7 November 2025, the single-judge bench of the High Court held that the statutory requirement of pre-institution mediation is mandatory only when the plaintiff does not seek urgent interim relief in the suit. In cases where urgent interim relief is contemplated, the plaintiff is permitted to file a civil action without first engaging in mediation under Section 12A. The Court reasoned that the crucial factor is the contemplation of interim relief at the time of filing the suit, and this should be accepted based on the averments in the plaint, unless palpably erroneous or mala fide.
Berger Paints’ case articulated that the debtor company had indicated its intention to sell its factory land in the Sarurpur Industrial Area, Faridabad, and had proposed a compromise scheme under Section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013 before the NCLT. With these developments, Berger claimed urgency to secure its dues and to prevent asset dissipation, which justified bypassing mediation. GPHP Holdings contended that the debt had arisen in mid-2024 and that the urgency claimed by Berger did not suffice to dispense with the mediation requirement, alleging delays and knowledge of debtor’s financial trouble by the plaintiff.
The Court found that the communications dated 12 February 2025 and 24 March 2025 established a credible basis for believing that the plaintiff “contemplated” urgent relief, as required by precedent. It therefore agreed that requirement of mediation did not stand in the way of the suit. The bench dismissed GPHP’s challenge to the exemption and refused to disturb the April 2025 order granting the relief to Berger.
This ruling clarifies the jurisprudence around Section 12A, reinforcing that where urgent interim relief is claimed, the mediation prerequisite may be dispensed with. It further underlines that courts must accept the plaintiff’s averments of urgency at the pleadings stage unless clearly unfounded.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.