$~10 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 19^th MARCH, 2026 IN THE MATTER OF:

+ CS(COMM) 634/2023 XCEPT MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED .....Plaintiff Through: Mr. Nishant Anand, Ms. Gunjan Bansal, Mr. Tarun Choudhary, Mr.

Yashwant Singh Khatri, Advs.

versus M/S ETHINOS DIGITAL MARKETING PVT. LTD. & ANR.

.....Defendants Through: Appearance not given CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD JUDGMENT (ORAL)

CS(COMM) 634/2023 & I.A. 17622/2023, I.A. 7274/2024, I.A.

17623/2023

1. I.A. 17623/2023 has been filed by the Plaintiff under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, seeking exemption from undergoing pre-

institution mediation and settlement.

2. The Suit is one for recovery of Rs. 6,09,05,795/-.

3. It is the case of the Plaintiff that it is engaged in the business of Digital Marketing Services since 2016 and provides Digital Marketing solutions to its customers. The Defendants approached the Plaintiff for providing campaign services for its clients, namely, M/s Cholamandalam MS General Insurance.

4. It is stated that on the instructions of the Defendants, the Plaintiffs rendered its campaign services on a monthly basis to M/s Cholamandalam MS General Insurance and subsequent invoices were being raised.

5. Paragraph No.8 of the plaint indicates the dates on which the invoices were raised and the amounts payable under the invoices.

6. It is stated that despite numerous reminders and requests, payments have not been made by the Defendants to the Plaintiffs and on the date when the Plaint was filed, a sum of Rs. 6,09,05,795/- was due and payable.

7. Undoubtedly, the present suit is a commercial suit.

8. Though an application under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 was filed, it was withdrawn on 13.09.2023 with liberty to file a fresh application if the need so arises, meaning thereby no urgent relief was contemplated.

9. In the opinion of this Court, since no urgent relief was contemplated, the Plaintiff cannot be exempted from the relief of Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. In the opinion of this Court, a money suit is the best suit which should be attempted to be settled through mediation and which is the purport of Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

10. It is pertinent to mention that the Apex Court in Patil Automation (P) Ltd. v. Rakheja Engineers (P) Ltd., (2022) 10 SCC 1 has discussed the mandatory nature of Section 12A of the CC Act. Relevant portion of the said judgment reads as under:

“99.1. The Act did not originally contain Section

12-A. It is by amendment in the year 2018 that Section 12-A was inserted. The Statement of Objects and Reasons are explicit that Section 12-A was contemplated as compulsory. The object of the Act and the Amending Act of 2018, unerringly point to at least partly foisting compulsory mediation on a plaintiff who does not contemplate urgent interim relief. The provision has been contemplated only with reference to plaintiffs who do not contemplate urgent interim relief. The legislature has taken care to expressly exclude the period undergone during mediation for reckoning limitation under the Limitation Act, 1963. The object is clear.

99.2. It is an undeniable reality that courts in India are reeling under an extraordinary docket explosion. Mediation, as an alternative dispute mechanism, has been identified as a workable solution in commercial matters. In other words, the cases under the Act lend themselves to be resolved through mediation. Nobody has an absolute right to file a civil suit. A civil suit can be barred absolutely or the bar may operate unless certain conditions are fulfilled. Cases in point, which amply illustrate this principle, are Section 80CPC and Section 69 of the Partnership Act.

99.3. The language used in Section 12-A, which includes the word “shall”, certainly, goes a long way to assist the Court to hold that the provision is mandatory. The entire procedure for carrying out the mediation, has been spelt out in the Rules. The parties are free to engage cou