Disposed¶23

M/S. Rolexco Buildtech Opc Private Limited v. Sh. Sunder Lal Gupta & Ors.

Delhi HC12 Feb 2026CS(COMM)/113/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Rolexco Buildtech OPC Private Limited v. Sunder Lal Gupta & Ors.; High Court of Delhi; CS(COMM) 113/2026 (I.A. 3275/2026, I.A. 3276/2026); Subramonium Prasad, J.; order dated 12.02.2026; Section 12-A Commercial Courts Act 2015; pre-institution mediation exemption refused; Yamini Manohar v. T.K.D. Keerthi (2024) 5 SCC 815 applied; Patil Automation (P) Ltd. v. Rakheja Engineers (P) Ltd. (2022) 10 SCC 1 referred; Order 7 Rule 11; suit disposed of as withdrawn with liberty to mediate and return.

What did the court decide?

Permission to withdraw the Suit with liberty to comply with Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (pre-institution mediation) and to approach the Court again if the mediation between the Parties fails; pending applications disposed of with the Suit. ¶23

M/S. Rolexco Buildtech Opc Private Limited Vs Sh. Sunder Lal Gupta & Ors. — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether anything on record satisfies the test laid down by the Apex Court in Yamini Manohar v. T.K.D. Keerthi so as to justify the Plaintiff's circumvention of the mandatory Section 12-A pre-institution mediation requirement of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

¶12

Court's answer

This Court is of the opinion that there is nothing on record which satisfies the test laid down by the Apex Court in Yamini Manohar v. T.K.D. Keerthi ((2024) 5 SCC 815) that would justify the Plaintiff having circumvented the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

¶12

Ratio / Principle

Permission and liberty granted to learned Senior Counsel for the Plaintiff to withdraw the Suit, with liberty to follow the mandatory provision of Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and thereafter approach this Court in case the mediation between the Parties fails.

¶22

Key takeaways

The Suit is disposed of as withdrawn, along with pending application(s), if any.ratio¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Delhi (Subramonium Prasad, J.), CS(COMM) 113/2026, order dated 12.02.2026: The plaint in this commercial suit was filed without the mandatory Section 12-A pre-institution mediation under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, accompanied by an interim application seeking exemption from pre-litigation mediation. Testing the plaint and the exemption application against the framework laid down by the Apex Court in Yamini Manohar v. T.K.D. Keerthi, (2024) 5 SCC 815 (whose observations the Court reproduces, including its reference to Patil Automation), the Court found nothing on record justifying circumvention of the statutory mandate. On the request of Senior Counsel for the Plaintiff, permission and liberty were granted to withdraw the Suit, undergo Section 12-A mediation, and return to the Court if mediation fails. The Suit was disposed of as withdrawn, along with pending application(s), if any.

¶1

$~45

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CS(COMM) 113/2026, I.A. 3275/2026, I.A. 3276/2026 M/S. ROLEXCO BUILDTECH OPC PRIVATE LIMITED

¶4

.....Plaintiff

¶5

Through: Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Shrey Chathly, and Ms. Vinita Sharma, Advocates.

¶6

versus

¶7

SH. SUNDER LAL GUPTA & ORS. .....Defendants Through: Mr. Shivam Goel, Ms. Ramya S. Goel and Ms. Sanya Sharma, Advocates.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD

¶10

O R D E R % 12.02.2026

¶11

The present Suit has been filed by the Plaintiff without following the mandatory provision of Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 i.e., Pre-Institution Mediation and Settlement.

¶12

After perusing the Plaint as well as the interim application seeking exemption from instituting pre-litigation mediation, this Court is of the opinion that there is nothing on record which satisfies the test laid down by the Apex Court in Yamini Manohar v. T.K.D. Keerthi, (2024) 5 SCC 815 , which would justify the Plaintiff having circumvented the mandatory procedure as prescribed under Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Relevant observations of the Apex Court in the said Judgment read as under:

¶13

“ 10. We are of the opinion that when a plaint is filed under the CC Act, with a prayer for an urgent interim relief, the commercial court should examine the nature and the subject-matter of the suit, the cause of action,

¶14

This is a digitally signed order.

¶15

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 19/02/2026 at 12:36:40

¶16

and the prayer for interim relief. The prayer for urgent interim relief should not be a disguise or mask to wriggle out of and get over Section 12-A of the CC Act. The facts and circumstances of the case have to be considered holistically from the standpoint of the plaintiff. Non-grant of interim relief at the ad interim stage, when the plaint is taken up for registration/admission and examination, will not justify dismissal of the commercial suit under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code; at times, interim relief is granted after issuance of notice. Nor can the suit be dismissed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code, because the interim relief, post the arguments, is denied on merits and on examination of the three principles, namely : (i) prima facie case, (ii) irreparable harm and injury, and (iii) balance of convenience. The fact that the court issued notice and/or granted interim stay may indicate that the court is inclined to entertain the plaint.

¶17

11. Having stated so, it is difficult to agree with the proposition that the plaintiff has the absolute choice and right to paralyse Section 12-A of the CC Act by making a prayer for urgent interim relief. Camouflage and guise to bypass the statutory mandate of prelitigation mediation should be checked when deception and falsity is apparent or established. The proposition that the commercial courts do have a role, albeit a limited one, should be accepted, otherwise it would be up to the plaintiff alone to decide whether to resort to the procedure under Section 12-A of the CC Act. An “absolute and unfettered right” approach is not justified if the pre-institution mediation under Section 12-A of the CC Act is mandatory, as held by this Court in Patil Automation [Patil Automation (P) Ltd. v. Rakheja Engineers (P) Ltd., (2022) 10 SCC 1 : (2023) 1 SCC (Civ) 545] .

¶18

12. The words “contemplate any urgent interim relief” in Section 12-A(1) of the CC Act, with reference to the suit, should be read as conferring power on the court

¶19

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 19/02/2026 at 12:36:40

¶20

to be satisfied. They suggest that the suit must “contemplate”, which means the plaint, documents and facts should show and indicate the need for an urgent interim relief. This is the precise and limited exercise that the commercial courts will undertake, the contours of which have been explained in the earlier paragraph(s). This will be sufficient to keep in check and ensure that the legislative object/intent behind the enactment of Section 12-A of the CC Act is not defeated. ”

¶21

Faced with the above position, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Plaintiff seeks permission to withdraw the present Suit, with liberty to follow the mandatory provision of Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and thereafter approach this Court, in case the mediation between the Parties fails.

¶22

Permission and liberty, as sought for, are granted.

¶23

The Suit is disposed of as withdrawn, along with pending application(s), if any.

¶24

SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J

¶25

FEBRUARY 12, 2026 S. Zakir

¶26

This is a digitally signed order.

¶27

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 19/02/2026 at 12:36:40

M/S. Rolexco Buildtech Opc Private Limited v. Sh. Sunder Lal Gupta & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Rolexco Buildtech Opc Private Limited v. Sh. Sunder Lal Gupta & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Adidas Ag & Anr. Vs Ashok Garg Trading as Tracking Shoes Company Tracking Shoes & Anr.

Verizon Trademark Services Llc & Ors. Vs Verizon Careers & Ors.

V4U Consultaants Pvt. Ltd. Vs Venus Mart LLP & Ors.

Micro Labs Limited Vs Pharma Roots Healthcare & Anr.

Xx Vs Yy

Aaa Infosystem Private Limited through Its Authorized Representative Mr Madhusudan Nair Vs Rma Estates and Industries Private Limited

Shri Sunil Kumar Jain & Anr. Vs Shri Anil Kumar Jain

Hero Investcorp Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs Ashok Kumar (John Doe)

Harbans Kaur Kochar Vs Vikas Verma & Anr.

Naveen Bansal Vs Ashwani Kumar Sharma & Ors.

Union of India Vs M/S Indu Projects Ltd.

Arjun Goyal & Anr. Vs Aashima Kansal Kuchhal and Ors.

Aaa Infosystem Private Limited through Its Authorized Representative Mr Madhusudan Nair Vs Rma Estates and Industries Private Limited

Nand Kishore Malhan Vs Dimple Anand & Anr.