SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Cal) 663

In the High Court at Calcutta
ANIRUDDHA ROY, J.
Berger Paints India Limited - Petitioner
Versus  
Gphp Holdings Pvt Ltd - Respondent
IA NO. GA-COM 3 of 2025,  CS-COM 48 of 2025 
Decided On : 07-11-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Anirban Ray, Sr. Adv., Mr. Soham Sen, Adv., Mr. Snehashis Sen, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Suddhasatva Banerjee, Adv., Mr. Kanishk Kejriwal, Adv., Mr.Aishwarya Kumar Awasthi, Adv.

Urgent interim relief under Section 12A of Commercial Courts Act permits dispensation of pre-litigation mediation if properly articulated by the plaintiff.

Headnote:(A) Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - Section 12A - Requirement of pre-litigation mediation - Plaintiff filed suit for unpaid consideration - Defendant sought to revoke dispensation of mediation requirement - Court held that if urgent interim relief is contended, mediation can be dispensed with - Pre-litigation mediation is mandatory only if no urgent relief is sought. (Paras 21, 24, 28)

(B) Urgency and Interim Relief - Consideration of urgency necessary for dispensing with mediation - Plaintiff’s claim for interim relief suffices grounds for jurisdiction under CC Act to dispense mediation requirement - Court emphasized the necessity of evaluating plaintiff's contemplation of urgency at the filing stage. (Paras 22, 26)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiff claimed due payments from the defendant totaling Rs. 1,01,60,721/- for goods supplied during February to June 2024 and meetings held regarding payment and compromise plans under the Companies Act. The defendant's financial struggles and intent to sell property were communicated via meetings and emails.

Findings of Court:
The court found that sufficient grounds existed for the plaintiff to claim urgent interim relief, enabling the dispensation of pre-litigation mediation as structured under Section 12A of the CC Act. The defendant’s claims of previous knowledge did not negate urgency.

Issues: The court assessed if the plaintiff adequately articulated urgency for seeking immediate interim relief, determining if mediation was truly bypassed.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that urgency as perceived by the plaintiff legitimized request for immediate relief without mediation, emphasizing the role of the plaintiff's articulation at the filing of a suit.

Result: Application dismissed.

Table of Content
1. plaintiff claims unpaid dues and contemplates urgency. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. defendant contests urgency and claims prior awareness. (Para 6 , 15 , 17)
3. court stresses need for evaluation of urgency in claims. (Para 20 , 22 , 24)
4. court clarifies conditions under which mediation may be dispensed. (Para 21 , 23)
5. application by defendant denied based on merit. (Para 30)

JUDGMENT :

ANIRUDDHA ROY, J.

FACTS:

1. The instant application has been filed by the defendant for withdrawal and/or cancelling and/or revoking the direction of the Co-ordinate Bench granting dispensation of requirement under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (for short “CC Act”).

2. The claim of the plaintiff was for unpaid consideration on account of goods sold and delivered by the plaintiff to the defendant.

3. On the basis of contemplating an urgency for an interim order, the petitioner/plaintiff applied before this Court seeking dispensation of the requirement under Section 12A of the CC Act being the pre-suit mediation procedure.

4. The principal averments made by the plaintiff, in support of such claim, are quoted from the plaint:

“10. The parties were maintaining running and continuous account. Upon adjustment of all payments made by the defendant, as per the ledger maintained by the plaintiff, in respect of the said accounts of the defendant, there is a total outstanding sum of Rs.1,01,60,721/- which commensurate with on account invoices from February 2024 to June, 2024 with regard to Account No. 57027 and Account No. 66404. The details of the outstanding invoices are mentioned in a Schedule and a copy whereof is annexed hereto and marked with the letter “C”. The ledgers maintained by the plaintiff with regard to the aforesaid two accounts are collectively annexed hereto and marked with the letter “D” series.

11. From time to time, the plaintiff requested the defendant to clear the aforesaid outstanding invoices, but the defendant failed and neglected to clear the same. However, the defendant, on such demand being made by the plaintiff, agreed for a meeting to be held at the office of the plaintiff at Berger House, 129, Park Street, Kolkata-700017, within the jurisdiction aforesaid.

12. In the meeting held on 4th February, 2025 at the registered office of the plaintiff at Berger House, 129, Park Street, Kolkata-700017, within the jurisdiction aforesaid, the representative of the defendant expressed that the defendant is in dire straits and in requirement of funds and for such funds, were trying to sell their plaint situated at Sarurpur Industrial Area, Faridabad. Further it was informed that a Scheme of Compromise with the creditors under Section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013 would be filed before the Hon’ble National Law Tribunal for settlement of the dues of the creditors. The representative of the plaintiff has expressed that such scheme is not acceptable to the plaintiff at all. The discussions of the meeting was recorded in an e-mail dated 12th February, 2025 by the defendant and a copy whereof is annexed hereto and marked with the letter “E”. The said email has been prepared and issued by the defendant at 234/3A, Acharya Jagadish Chandra Bose Road, Kolkata-700020, outside the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court and has been received by the plaintiff at 129, Park Street, Police Station Park Street, Kolkata-700017, within the aforesaid jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.

13. In another meeting held on 20th March, 2025 at the corporate office of the plaintiff at Berger Paints Corporate Office at CF Block, New Town, Action Area- 1, New Town Kolkata-700156, outside the jurisdiction aforesaid, and by an e-mail dated 24th March, 2025, the defendant expressed its precarious financial condition and the closure of the operation of the blade plant located at Sarurpur Industrial Area, Faridabad, outside the jurisdiction aforesaid. The defendant communicated that an application for scheme in compromise and arrangement under Section 230-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top