2026 Supreme(Online)(Cal) 3479

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Aniruddha Roy, J
J K Engineering Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Ane Industries Private Limited – Respondent
IA NO. GA-COM/3/2025 | CS-COM/834/2024

Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act mandates pre-institution mediation unless urgent interim relief is contemplated. Courts must assess this urgency plausibly from the plaintiff's standpoint; additionally, leave granted under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent may be revoked if the forum is found to be inconvenient for the defendant.

Headnote:(A) Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - Section 12A - Pre-institution mediation - Mandatory nature - Whether suit contemplates urgent interim relief - Test for dispensation - Held, Section 12A is a mandatory provision and non-compliance renders a plaint institutionally defective; however, the Court may grant leave to dispense with the process if the plaint and materials show a real, plausible need for urgent interim intervention from the standpoint of the plaintiff, without the request being a mere camouflage to bypass the statutory mandate. (Paras 58-62, 65-66)

(B) Letters Patent, 1865 - Clause 12 - Territorial jurisdiction - Doctrine of forum conveniens - Discretionary power to revoke leave - Where only a part of the cause of action arises within the court's jurisdiction, the Court may revoke leave granted if the balance of convenience is found to be overwhelmingly in favour of the defendant, to prevent harassment or injustice to the party. (Paras 68-71, 74-76)

Facts of the case:
An application was filed by the defendant for revocation of leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent and revocation of the dispensation granted for pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act. The defendant argued that the plaintiff failed to establish urgency to bypass mediation and that the suit was filed in an inconvenient forum, as the entire cause of action arose outside the territorial jurisdiction. The plaintiff opposed this, asserting that urgent interim relief was required to protect assets, citing previous litigation history and asserting that the court had correctly exercised its discretion.

Findings of Court:
The court held that it must exercise its judicial discretion to determine the necessity of pre-institution mediation by viewing the plaint from the plaintiff’s perspective, provided the urgency is plausible. However, regarding territorial jurisdiction, the court found that as the defendant had no presence within the jurisdiction and the balance of convenience clearly favored the defendant, the leave previously granted for the suit should be revoked.

Issues: (1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to dispense with the mandatory pre-institution mediation requirement under Section 12A of the Act. (2) Whether the leave granted under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent should be revoked on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction and forum non-conveniens.

Ratio Decidendi: While the court upheld the dispensation of pre-institution mediation based on the plaintiff’s plausible claim of urgent need, it exercised its discretion under the Letters Patent to revoke the leave to sue because the forum was inconvenient, given that the defendant resided outside the jurisdiction and the preponderance of evidence and witnesses were located elsewhere.

Result: Application disposed of; leave granted under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent revoked; plaint to be returned for presentation before the appropriate jurisdictional court.