You Cannot Fake Urgency to Skip Mediation: Supreme Court in Yamini Manohar v. T.K.D. Keerthi

Supreme Court Ruling Highlights Importance of Mediation in Legal Proceedings: "You Cannot Fake Urgency to Skip Mediation" in Yamini Manohar v. T.K.D. Keerthi Case.

In a significant ruling for the alternative dispute resolution landscape, the Supreme Court of India has made clear that plaintiffs in commercial suits cannot manufacture a prayer for urgent interim relief simply to sidestep the mandatory pre-litigation mediation requirement under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

The Background

The dispute arose in C.S. (Comm.) No. 205/2022, where the defendant, Yamini Manohar, filed an application under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the plaintiff had not exhausted the remedy of pre-litigation mediation as mandated by Section 12A. The trial court dismissed the application, the Delhi High Court upheld that dismissal, and the matter ultimately reached the Supreme Court by way of a Special Leave Petition.

The Law: Section 12A is Not Optional

Section 12A(1) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 bars the institution of any commercial suit that does not contemplate urgent interim relief, unless the plaintiff has first exhausted the remedy of pre-institution mediation. The Supreme Court had previously settled in Patil Automation Private Limited v. Rakheja Engineers Private Limited (2022 SCC OnLine SC 1028) that this provision is mandatory. The consequence of non-compliance is that the plaint is liable to be rejected.

The exception to this mandate is narrow: where the suit genuinely contemplates urgent interim relief, the plaintiff may proceed to court directly. The word "contemplate" in the provision, the Court clarified, means that the plaint, documents, and facts must actually show and indicate the need for urgent relief.

What the Court Decided

A Bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and S.V. Bhatti upheld the orders of the courts below and dismissed the Special Leave Petition. Since an urgent interim relief had in fact been prayed for in the plaint, the condition under Section 12A was satisfied, and the suit was maintainable without prior mediation.

However, the Court went further and issued important guidance that cuts both ways. While affirming that a plaintiff seeking genuine urgent relief need not file a separate application for exemption from Section 12A, the Court firmly rejected the idea that a plaintiff enjoys an absolute right to bypass mediation simply by tacking on a prayer for interim relief. The commercial court is expected to examine the nature and subject matter of the suit, the cause of action, and the prayer for interim relief holistically, from the perspective of the plaintiff.

Critically, the Court held that a suit cannot be dismissed under Order VII, Rule 11 merely because interim relief was not granted at the ad-interim stage, or because it was later denied on merits after examining prima facie case, irreparable harm, and balance of convenience. The court issuing notice or granting an ad-interim stay may itself indicate that the plaint was entertained in good faith.

Disguise and Camouflage Will Be Checked

The Court's sharpest observation was reserved for those who attempt to use the urgent relief route as a disguise to escape the statutory mediation mandate. The Bench observed that camouflage and guise to bypass pre-litigation mediation must be checked where deception and falsity is apparent or established. Commercial courts, the Court said, have a limited but real role in scrutinising whether the urgency is genuine, failing which the entire object of Section 12A would be defeated.

This position was consistent with the Bombay High Court's view in Kaulchand H. Jogani v. M/s Shree Vardhan Investment and Ors. (2022 SCC OnLine Bom 4752), which the Supreme Court cited approvingly, that a court is justified in recording a finding that a suit does not truly contemplate urgent interim relief where an application for such relief has been filed without any real justification, solely to get around Section 12A.

What This Means in Practice

For parties and their counsel, the ruling sends a clear message. The question of whether a suit contemplates urgent interim relief is determined solely on the pleadings and the relief sought in the plaint. A plaintiff is the sole author of those pleadings. But that authorship comes with accountability. Where the facts and circumstances do not disclose any genuine urgency, courts are now empowered and expected to see through the attempt.

For ODR practitioners and dispute resolution service providers, the decision reinforces a broader judicial philosophy: pre-institution mediation under Section 12A is not a procedural inconvenience to be routed around. It is a substantive statutory obligation designed to encourage early, efficient, and consensual resolution of commercial disputes. Parties who approach this process in good faith, particularly through digital and online conciliation platforms, stand to benefit from faster resolution timelines and avoidance of costly litigation battles over preliminary objections.

The ruling in Yamini Manohar v. T.K.D. Keerthi, decided by the Supreme Court on October 13, 2023, is reported as (2024) 5 SCC 815.