M S Cosmos Infrabuild Private Limited vs. M S Kalyan Jewellers INDIA Limited

Facts

The plaintiff, M S Cosmos Infrabuild Private Limited, filed a commercial suit against the defendant, M S Kalyan Jewellers India Limited, concerning a property leased to the defendant. The plaintiff also filed an application for exemption from pre-litigation mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, citing the need for urgent interim relief. The plaintiff sought directions for the defendant to hand over possession of the property or pay a monthly rent of Rs. 24,19,000/-. The plaintiff also sought the appointment of a local commissioner to inspect the property. The dispute stems from a lease agreement and prior litigation between the parties regarding the refund of a security deposit and possession of the property. The Court noted previous orders from a Single Judge and a Division Bench concerning interim arrangements and the defendant's right to retain possession pending refund of the security deposit.

Held

The Court held that the plaintiff's suit does not contemplate urgent interim relief, and therefore, the exemption from pre-litigation mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, is not permissible. The Court reasoned that the Division Bench's prior order clearly established that the defendant has the right to remain in possession of the suit property until the security deposit is refunded by the plaintiff. Furthermore, the question of compensation for restoration of the property requires adjudication in the pending suit. Given these findings, the Court found the plaintiff's request for urgent interim relief in the present suit to be not bona fide. The Court relied on the Supreme Court's judgments in Patil Automation Private Limited and Yamini Manohar, which clarify that the commercial court must be satisfied that the suit genuinely contemplates urgent interim relief and that such prayers should not be used as a camouflage to bypass the statutory mandate of pre-litigation mediation. Consequently, the application for exemption from mediation was rejected, rendering the suit not maintainable and dismissing it. The plaintiff was granted liberty to institute a fresh suit after complying with Section 12A of the Act. The prayer for refund of court fees was rejected, citing the Supreme Court's observations in Patil Automation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the present suit contemplates urgent interim relief, thereby exempting the plaintiff from mandatory pre-litigation mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015? Petitioner's arguments: The plaintiff contended that the suit necessitates urgent interim relief, as evidenced by the prayers for the handover of property possession or substantial monthly compensation, and the appointment of a local commissioner. They argued that the nature of the dispute and the previous litigation indicated a need for immediate court intervention to protect their rights. Revenue/State's arguments: The judgment does not record specific arguments from the revenue or state. However, the Court's analysis implies that the plaintiff's claim for urgent interim relief was not considered bona fide in light of the existing judicial pronouncements regarding the parties' rights and the pendency of prior proceedings. The Court referenced Supreme Court judgments in Patil Automation Private Limited and Yamini Manohar, emphasizing that the prayer for urgent interim relief should not be a mere guise to bypass the mandatory mediation requirement.