The mandatory requirement of pre-institution mediation under Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 must be complied with for a suit to be maintainable.

ORDER :

Prayer in CRP No. 3672 of 2022: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 Constitution of India to set aside the one-line docket order and decreetal order dated 28.07.2022 made in I.A.No. 2 of 2022 in COS.No. 9 of 2022 on the file of Commercial District Judge, Salem.

Prayer in CRP No. 3800 of 2022: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 Constitution of India to set aside the order and decreetal order dated 03.09.2022 made in I.A.No. 4 of 2022 in COS No. 9 of 2022 on the file of the Commercial District Judge, Salem by allowing the present Revision.

Prayer in CRP No. 338 of 2023: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 Constitution of India to set aside the docket order dated 20.10.2022 in I.A.No. 6 of 2022 in C.O.S. No. 9 of 2022 on the file of the learned District Judge, Commercial Court, Salem as illegal and incompetent without jurisdiction.

Prayer in CRP No. 2123 of 2023: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 Constitution of India to strike off the plaint in C.O.S. No. 10 of 2023 on the file of the learned District Judge, Commercial Court, Salem for want of compliance of Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (4 of 2016) together with lack of jurisdiction in terms of Section 9 of the Code of the Civil Procedure.

1. Since the parties in the Revisions are one and the same, they are taken up together and a common order is being passed.

2. The brief facts leading to the Revisions are as follows:

(i) The respondent in the first two Revisions, viz., CRP Nos.3672 and 3800 of 2022, viz., Madhanraj, HUF represented by its Kartha Madhanraj filed commercial original suit in C.O.S. No. 118 of 2021 [Lateron, on the formation of Commercial Court transferred from the Principal District Court, Salem and renumbered as C.O.S.No. 9 of 2022]. As per said the plaint averment, the defendant who is the revision petitioner in C.R.P. Nos.3672 and 3800 of 2022 and 2123 of 2023 and respondent in CRP No. 338 of 2023 was then and there borrowing money from the respondent / plaintiff herein on from various dates from 21-11-2013 onwards either by bank account transfer or by cash for the defendant/petitioner's urgent personal and business requirements by assuring to the repay the debt with interest at the rate of Rs.1/- per 100 per month. As per the account maintained by the plaintiff, the defendant was liable to pay a sum of Rs.2,09,72,300/- towards principal and interest as on 7-12-2019. On which day, the amount due was rounded off to Rs.2,05,00,000/- to which, the defendant acknowledged and executed the promissory note for Rs.2,05,00,000/- on 7-12-2019. Thereafter, on 18-02-2021, the defendant borrowed Rs.29,00,000/- from the plaintiff for the urgent personal use and executed a promissory note on 18-2-2021 in favour of the plaintiff assuring to repay the same with an interest at the rate of Rs.1 per 100 per month to the plaintiff.

(ii) It is further alleged in the plaint that when the plaintiff demanded the defendant to repay the debt, the defendant issued cheques on 08-05-2021 dated 21-7-2021 for a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- and cheque dated 25-06-2021 for a sum of Rs 25,00,000/- and two cheques dated 26- 7-2021 for a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- each. It is stated in the plaint that when the cheques were presented, it was dishonoured under the endorsement either funds insufficient or exceeds, thereby, entitling the plaintiff to send a statutory legal notice on 10-8-2021 demanding the cheque amounts. Though the notice was received on 11-8-2021 instead of honouring the cheque, the defendant seems to have sent a reply on 16-8-2021 to which the plaintiff sent a rejoinder notice on 21-8-2021 that was received by the defendant and the defendant seems to have issued reply to the rejoinder notice sent by the plaintiff.

(iii) Thereafter, the plaintiff has initiated criminal proceedings before the Judicial Magistrate - V, Salem on 20-9-2021 for an offence under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act. However, reserving his right to