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

2025 Supreme(Jhk) 2304

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, C.J., RAJESH SHANKAR, J.
Union of India, Ministry of Railways – Appellant 
Versus
M/s Sidhi Vinayak Metcom Limited – Respondent 
Commercial Appeal No. 02 of 2025
Decided on : 26-09-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Prashant Pallav, D.S.G.I. Mr. Ayush, A.C. to D.S.G.I.
For the Respondent:Mr. Shresth Gautam, Advocate

The requirement for pre-institution mediation in commercial disputes is mandatory for plaintiffs. Failure to adhere to procedural rules, including the payment of prescribed mediation fees, constitutes failure to discharge the statutory obligation, rendering a suit liable to be rejected under the relevant provincial and national procedural laws.

Headnote:(A) Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - Section 12-A - Pre-institution mediation - Requirement of pre-institution mediation is a mandatory procedural condition to be satisfied by a plaintiff before instituting a commercial suit - Provisions regarding the process and mediation fees as prescribed under the relevant rules are binding and must be strictly followed to fulfill the statutory obligation - Non-compliance results in the liability of the plaint to be rejected under the applicable code of civil procedure. (Paras 18, 26, 31)

(B) Appeals - Scope and criteria - The role of an appellate court in reviewing an order of rejection of plaint is to assess the correctness of the decision within the framework of procedural law - In the absence of perversity or legal error, the exercise of judicial discretion by the lower court in enforcing mandatory pre-litigation requirements will not be disturbed. (Paras 25, 39)

Facts of the case:
A commercial suit for recovery of money was instituted after an unsuccessful attempt at mediation, during which the mediation fee was not deposited by either party. The trial court rejected the plaint on the grounds that the mandatory pre-institution mediation procedure, specifically the requirement to pay the requisite mediation fees, had not been followed. The plaintiffs challenged this rejection, contending that the failure to pay fees did not equate to a failure to comply with the statutory mediation mandate.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the mandatory nature of the pre-institution mediation requirement is intended to facilitate alternative dispute resolution. Since the governing rules clearly stipulate the payment of mediation fees prior to the commencement of the process, the failure to deposit such fees renders the mediation process incomplete and non-compliant with the statutory requirements.

Issues: The central issues addressed were whether the pre-institution mediation requirement is mandatory for a plaintiff and whether the non-payment of prescribed mediation fees warrants the rejection of the plaint under procedural rules.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that pre-institution mediation is a non-negotiable statutory prerequisite for commercial litigation. As the legislation and associated rules prescribe a specific mechanism for resolving disputes, a failure to adhere to the procedural requirements, including the deposit of stipulated fees, effectively nullifies the attempt at mediation, thereby justifying the rejection of the suit.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. procedural history and factual genesis of the commercial dispute. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
2. parties' contentions regarding mediation fee payment and compliance with pre-litigation rules. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 23 , 33 , 34 , 35)
3. interpretation of section 12-a of the commercial courts act and relevant judicial precedents. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 24 , 25 , 27 , 28 , 36 , 37 , 38)
4. mandatory nature of pre-institution mediation and consequences of non-compliance. (Para 26 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32)
5. final adjudication dismissing the appeal and upholding the rejection of the plaint. (Para 39 , 40)

JUDGMENT :

Rajesh Shankar, J. :

I.A No. 8004 of 2024

1. The present interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of the appellants for condonation of delay of 14 days in filing the present appeal.

2. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on being satisfied with the reasons stated in the present interlocutory application, the said delay in filing the present appeal is hereby condoned.

3. I.A No. 8004 of 2024 is accordingly disposed of.

Commercial Appeal No. 02 of 2025

4. The present appeal is directed against the order dated 08.05.2024 passed by the District Judge-III-cum-Presiding Officer, Commercial Court, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in Original Suit No. 06 of 2022 whereby the plaint filed by the plaintiffs/appellants has been rejected holding that the said suit was filed without compliance of the mandatory provisions as contained in Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (hereinafter to be referred as the “Act, 2015”).

5. The factual background of the case as stated in the present appeal is that the defendants/respondents had transported 88,506.07 MT iron ore through rail at concessional freight rate during the period from 01.04.2009 to 31.03.2010, 01.04.2011 to 31.03.2012 and 01.04.2013 to 31.03.2014 on specific representation that the said iron ore would entirely be utilized for domestic consumption, however only 65,884.08 MT iron ore was utilized in the domestic manufacturing units of the respondents for manufacturing the permitted goods and 28,700.16 MT iron ore was used for the purposes other than domestic consumption for which they were liable to pay the charges against evaded freight charges and additional charges at penal rate.

6. The appellants initiated a mediation process set out under rule 3 of the Commercial Courts (Pre-Institution Mediation and Settlement) Rules, 2018 (in short, “the Rules, 2018”) by filing an application before the District Legal Services Authority, Jamshedpur in Form-1 specified in Schedule-I of the Rules, 2018.

7. The said application was registered as Pre-Institution Mediation and Settlement (PIMS) Case No. 06 of 2019, however the mediation process was treated as “Non-Starter” vide orders dated 23.12.2021 and 20.01.2022 passed by the Secretary (Incharge), DLSA, Jamshedpur on the ground that both the parties did not submit the mediation fee. Further, the office was directed to issue “Non-Starter” report which was issued to both the parties in Form-3 of Schedule-I of the Rules, 2018.

8. The appellants filed a suit against the respondents before the Additional District Judge-I, Commercial Court, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur for recovery of a sum of Rs.26,73,77,920/- towards the principal amount of evaded freight charges along with compensation of Rs.5,34,75,584/- for direct loss suffered by them caused due to fundamental breach of contract as well as interest of Rs.33,43,36,737/- till 30.06.2019 (in total Rs.65,51,90,241/-) and future interest “pendente lite” till realization of the said amount.

9. The said suit was registered as Original Suit No. 06 of 2022 in which the respondents appeared and filed a petition under order VII rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC and Section 12-A of the Act, 2015. After hearing the parties, the plaint filed by the plaintiffs/appellants was rejected vide order dated 08.05.2024 holding that the said sui

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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