M/S Sta Bgm and M Srsc Jv Amidha Thro Its Constituted Attorney Sri Jayanta Sharma Vs Eastern Coalfields Ltd. through Office of the Chairman Cum Managing Director

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Commercial Appeal No. 04 of 2024

¶3

M/s. STA-BGM & M-SRSC (JV), Amidha, having its office at P.O. and P.S. – Lalganj, Paschim Burdwan, West Bengal, Pin- 713359 through its constituted attorney Sri Jayanta Sharma, Age 46 years son of late Panchnan Sharma of, Village – Amidha, P.O. and P.S. – Lalganj, Paschim Burdwan, West Bengal, Pin – 713359

¶4

Jayanta Sharma, Constituted Attorney of M/s STA – BGM & M – SRSC (JV), P.O. & P.S. Lalganj, Dist – Paschim Bardwan, West Bengal 713359 ......Appellants

¶5

Versus

¶6

Eastern Coalfields Limited (a subsidiary of Coal India Limited), Sanctoria, Headquarters, P.O. & P.S. Dishergarh, District Paschim Bardhaman, Pin: 713333, West Bengal, service through office of the Chairman-cum-Managing Director;

¶7

The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Eastern Coalfields Limited, Sanctoria, Headquarters, P.O. & P.S. Dishergarh, District – Paschim Bardhaman, Pin Code – 713333 West Bengal

¶8

The General Manager, Contract Management Cell (CMC), Eastern Coalfields Limited, Sanctoria, Headquarters, P.O. & P.S. Dishergarh, District – Paschim Bardhaman, Pin Code – 713333, West Bengal

¶9

The General Manager, Mugma Area, Eastern Coalfields Limited, office at QQ86+4F7, National Highway 2, Rajpura, P.O. & P.S. – Dhanbad, District Dhanbad, Jharkhand Pin Code – 828203

¶10

Agent / Chief Manager, Kapasara Mines, Eastern Coalfields Limited, office at QQ86+4F7, National Highway 2, Rajpura, P.O. & P.S. Dhanbad, District Dhanbad, Jharkhand, Pin Code - 828203

¶11

The Chief Manager (Personnel)/APM, Mugma Area, Eastern Coalfields Limited, office at QQ86+4F7, National Highway 2, Rajpura, P.O. & P.S. – Dhanbad, District – Dhanbad, Jharkhand, Pin - 828203

¶12

... Respondents

¶13

---------------

¶14

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶15

For the Appellants : Mr. Subhabrata Datta, Advocate : Mr. Subhojit Seal, Advocate : Mr. Chandrajit Mukherjee, Advocate : Mr. Preetam Mandal, Advocate For the ECL : Mr. Anoop Kr. Mehta, Advocate : Mr. Pratyush, Advocate

¶16

---------------

¶17

Order No. 06/ Dated: 22.08.2024

¶18

Per, Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.

¶19

Heard the learned counsels for the parties.

¶20

1

¶21

2. This Commercial Appeal has been filed under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of the High Courts Act, 2015, challenging the judgment dated 03.04.2024, passed by learned Presiding Officer Commercial Court – cum – District Judge III, Dhanbad in Commercial Suit No. 1 of 2024, whereby the learned court has refused to admit the suit which was filed without complying with the provisions of Section 12A of Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the aforesaid Act of 2015) .

¶22

3. The learned counsel for the appellants while assailing the impugned judgment has submitted that the plaint was filed along with the petition seeking exemption from availing the remedy of mediation under Section 12A of the aforesaid Act of 2015, but the learned court has mechanically refused to admit the suit. He submits that though under the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Patil Automation Private Limited and others Vs. Rakheja Engineers Private Limited reported in (2022) 10 SCC 1 , pre-litigation mediation under Section 12A of the aforesaid Act of 2015 has been held to be mandatory, but in the cases of urgent interim relief, the said requirement has been dispensed with. He submits that there is an indication to that effect under Section 12A of the aforesaid Act of 2015 itself. He has referred to Sub-section (1) to submit that a suit which does not contemplate any urgent interim relief under the aforesaid Act of 2015 shall not be instituted unless the plaintiff exhausts the remedy of pre-litigation mediation.

¶23

4. The learned counsel has referred to the letter dated 01.01.2024 regarding termination of contract as contained in Annexure - 15 and submitted that the termination has been made effective from 30.06.2023 along with other stipulations. The learned counsel submits that so far as the stipulation regarding invocation of bank guarantee is concerned, the same has already been invoked. He has further submitted that so far as banning of business is concerned, the same has been stayed by this Court in another writ petition filed by the petitioner being W.P.(C) No. 164 of 2024 which is pending before this Court. The learned counsel submits that the appellants are concerned with the further stipulation in the letter of termination dated 01.01.2024 which relates to recovery of penalty.

¶24

2

¶25

5. The learned counsel submits that in view of the stipulation in the aforesaid Letter of Termination, the appellants straightaway filed the suit, made clear averments in the suit at paragraph number 25 to 31 and mentioned that the appellants are also entitled for a decree of temporary injunction restraining the defendants and their men and/ or agents from giving further effect to the Letter of Termination dated 01.01.2024. The suit was accompanied with a separate petition seeking leave to institute the suit without complying with the provisions of Section 12A of the aforesaid Act of 2015 and specific averments were made that the amount mentioned in the Letter of Termination or any part thereof as was claimed by the defendants as penalty was illegal and not recoverable and there was great urgency in the matter. It was also asserted that since delay in institution in the suit would cause serious financial hardship to the plaintiffs unless any ad interim injunction or interim relief is granted in favour of the plaintiffs restraining the defendants from taking any further steps for realization of the amount.

¶26

6. The learned counsel submits that the averments made therein were enough to dispense with the requirement of pre-litigation mediation under Section 12A of the aforesaid Act of 2015, but the learned court has not properly taken into consideration these aspects of the matter and has passed the impugned order which calls for interference.

¶27

7. The learned counsel has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2024) 05 SCC 815 (Yamini Manohar v. T. K. D. Keerthi) and in particular referred to Paragraph Nos. 10 and 11 to submit that when a plaint is filed under the Commercial Courts Act with a prayer for urgent interim relief, the Commercial Court should examine the nature, subject matter of the suit, the cause of action and the prayer for interim relief.

¶28

8. The learned counsel has also referred to the relief as prayed for in the suit and has submitted that the main relief was to challenge the Letter of Termination dated 01.01.2024 and the plaintiffs had also prayed for a decree by way of damages/compensation for illegal termination of contract amounting to Rs 51.67 crores and odd with interest pendente lite till recovery, and also a prayer for temporary injunction. He submits that

¶29

3

¶30

the suit was not for a money claim. He has further submitted that since the order of termination of contract was under challenge in the suit, the matter could not have been resolved through mediation at all, and this aspect of the matter was also required to be taken into consideration by the court concerned that the letter under challenge being the letter of termination, no useful purpose will be served by sending the matter for preinstitutional mediation.

¶31

9. The learned counsel has further submitted that, pursuant to the order passed by this Court, a counter-affidavit has been filed and a rejoinder has also been filed to the counter-affidavit, wherein the petitioners has brought on record a letter dated 11.07.2024 issued by the respondentEastern Coalfields Ltd., whereby, as per the decision of their authority, the bills which were payable to the appellants arising out of other contracts has been held up by way of penalty pursuant to the order of termination of contract. The learned counsel has submitted that this happened pursuant to the letter dated 08.07.2024 issued by the petitioner seeking recovery of bills raised way back in the month of November and December 2023.

¶32

10. The learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondents while opposing the prayer, has submitted that mere filing of a petition seeking exemption from complying with the procedure laid down under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, is not sufficient. The same was also to be supported by the requirement of issuance of urgent interim relief. While taking us to the petition so filed, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the plaintiffs had not disclosed any particulars of any kind of recovery which the plaintiffs were apprehending. The petition seeking exemption from complying with the procedure laid down under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act was absolutely vague. The learned counsel submits that this was one of the prime reasons cited by the learned court while rejecting the petition and refusing to entertain the suit without mediation. The learned court has recorded that the plaintiffs have not disclosed as to what steps have been taken by the defendants to recover the penalty. The learned counsel submits that if the Plaintiffs were anticipating recovery against any contract/bill, the foundational fact in that regard ought to have been mentioned in the petition itself.

¶33

4

¶34

11. The learned counsel has also relied upon the judgment in the case of Yamini Manohar (supra) and submitted that the suit must contemplate urgent interim relief, meaning thereby that the plaint, documents, and facts should clearly show and indicate the need for such urgent relief. The learned counsel submits that the foundational fact to satisfy the requirement of 'contemplating any urgent interim relief' under Section 12A(1) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, was ex facie absent, which has been the main reason for the rejection of the petition, and therefore, the appeal does not call for any interference.

¶35

12. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that the suit was filed

¶36

for the following relief:

¶37

“a) A Decree declaring that the termination of contract by a letter being memo no.ECL/KC/AGT/2023/02 dated January 01, 2024 is void, illegal and bad in law and thus not binding upon the plaintiff. b) A Decree for a sum of Rs.51,67,40,802.38/- (Rupees Fifty One Crores Sixty Seven Lakhs Fourty Thousands Eight Hundred Two and Thirty Eight Paisa) on account of damages/compensation for illegal termination of contract vide memo no.ECL/KC/AGT/2023/02 dated January 01, 2024.

¶38

c) Interest Pendente Lite and interest on decree till the recovery of the sum at such rate as this Learned Court feels fit and proper. d) A Decree of temporary injunction restraining the defendant and their men and/or agents from giving further effect to the Letter of Termination being memo no.ECL/KC/AGT/2023/02 dated January 01, 2024.

e) Receiver.

1) Injunction.

g) Attachment.

h) Costs.

i) Such further and/or other relief or reliefs.

¶44

And for this act of kindness, your Plaintiffs are in duty bound, shall ever pray.”

¶45

13. The Letter of Termination dated 01.01.2024 (Annexure-15) was issued with the following directions:

¶46

“1. Termination of the contract for the subject work awarded to M/S STABGM & M-SRSC(JV) w.e.f. 30-06-2023 as per clause no. 9 of GTC.

¶47

2. Banning of the business for the period of 12 months to all JV partners i.e i) M/s Sharma Transport Agency ii) M/s Biswajit Ghosh Mining & Movers iii) M/s Shree Rani Sati Carriers as per clause no. 9.2(c) of GTC of Contract Agreement.

¶48

5

¶49

3. Recovery of penalty including but not limiting to as per clause No. 9.2(c) of GTC for the approved value of Rs 29,61,32,571.42 Which will be recovered by forfeiting PSD and additional PSD submitted as BG amounting 5,51,52,271.00 (Rupees Five crore fifty-one lakhs fifty two thousand two-hundred sevent-one and apisa zero only) in first instance and balace amount will be recovered as per clause 9.2(c) (ii) of GTC of agreement quoted below: Details of BG is given below in the tabulated form:

¶50

Sl. No .	Name of the party	Bank detail s	Branch name	Nature og BG	BG No.	LOA/work order	BG Date	BG Validity	BG Amount (Rs.)
1	M/s STA- BGM & M – SRSC(J V)	HDF C Bank	Raniga nj	Performa nce		ECL/HQ/CMC/L OA/KAPASARA OC PATCH/443	17-08-2028	17-08-2028	66,15,241.00
2	M/s STA- BGM & M – SRSC(J V)	ICIC I Bank	Dhanba d		0175BGFD 004819	ECL/HQ/CMC/L OA/KAPASARA OC PATCH/443	21-08-2018	31-08-2028	97,00,000.00
3	M/s STA- BGM & M – SRSC(J V)	ICIC I bank	Dhanba d		0175BGFD 004719	ECL/HQ/CMC/L OA/KAPASARA OC PATCH/443	21-08-2018	31-08-2028	1,45,00,000.00
4	M/s STA- BGM & M – SRSC(J V)	ICIC I bank	Dhanba d		0175BGFD 004919	ECL/HQ/CMC/L OA/KAPASARA OC PATCH/443	23-08-2018	31-08-2028	2,43,37,030.00
Tota	lamount of	BankG	uarantee						5,51,52,271.00

¶51

14. So far as direction no.2 contained in the letter of termination is concerned, no grievance has been raised by the appellants apparently on account of reason that some interim relief has been granted to the appellants in a writ proceeding being W.P.(C). No.164 of 2024 and the said writ petition is still pending. The bone of contention is with respect to paragraph 3. Admittedly, the bank guarantees have already been invoked and the securities have already been forfeited. It is also a fact that still certain amount is to be recovered. Paragraphs 25 to 31 of the suit was filed by the plaintiff and referred to by the learned counsel for the appellants to show requirement of urgent interim relief are quoted as under:-

¶52

“25. Thereafter, by a letter of demand dated January 19, 2024, the Plaintiffs claimed and demanded a sum of Rs.51,67,40,802.38/(Rupees Fifty One Crores Sixty Seven Lakhs Fourty Thousands Eight Hundred Two and Thirty Eight Paisa) on account of damages for the aforesaid reasons within January 28, 2024. The said letter was duly served upon the defendants through electronic mail on January 22, 2024 and subsequently served through usual course of business.

¶53

6

¶54

26. The sequel of events supported by the contemporaneous letters issued by the Plaintiffs go to show that due to failure in discharging primary contractual obligation by the Defendants, the Plaintiffs were precluded from executing the subject work. Therefore, the defendants cannot take advantage of their own wrong by penalizing the Plaintiffs by invoking clause 9 of the General terms and conditions of the contract saddled with financial liabilities upon the Plaintiffs.

¶55

27. The letter of Termination being memo no.ECL/KC/AGT/2023/02 dated January 01, 2024, is, therefore, an arbitrary attempt to penalize the Plaintiff no.1 in a manner which is illegal.

¶56

28. The Plaintiff No.1 is therefore entitled to a Decree declaring that the termination of contract by a letter being memo no.ECL/KC/AGT/2023/02 dated January 01. 2024 is void, illegal and bad in law and thus not binding upon the plaintiff.

¶57

29. The Plaintiff No.1 is also entitled to a Decree for a sum of Rs.51,67,40,802.38/- (Rupees Fifty One Crores Sixty Seven Lakhs Fourty Thousands Eight Hundred Two and Thirty Eight Paisa) on account of damages/compensation for illegal termination of contract vide memo no.ECL/KC/AGT/2023/02 dated January 01, 2024.

¶58

30. The Plaintiff No.1 is further entitled to Interest Pendente Lite and interest on decree till the recovery of the sum at such rate as this Learned Court feels fit and proper.

¶59

31. The Plaintiff No.1 is also entitled to a Decree of temporary injunction restraining the defendant and their men and/or agents from giving further effect to the Letter of Termination being memo no.ECL/KC/AGT/2023/02 dated January 01, 2024.”

¶60

15. The plaint was accompanied with the petition seeking institution of suit without complying with section 12A of the aforesaid Act of 2015. The paragraph relevant for the purposes of present case as pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants are paragraph 6 to 9 which are quoted as under:

¶61

“6. That the Defendants, in it’s purported letter of termination imposed a penalty to the tune of Rs.29,61,32,471.42/-, which they intent to recover from the entitled sum of the plaintiff. As the termination of the contract is ex-facie illegal owing to the reason as aforesaid, the said sum of Rs.29,61,32,471.42/- or any part thereof or at all alleged to have been claimed by the Defendant as a penalty is also illegal and as such, the same is not recoverable from the entitled sum of the plaintiff.

¶62

7

¶63

7. There is great urgency in the matter, since delay in instituting the present suit will cause serious financial hardship to the Plaintiffs, unless any ad-interim and/or interim relief is granted in favour of the plaintiffs restraining the Defendants from taking further steps for the realization of the said amount. Therefore, adhering to the procedural prescriptions as envisaged in section 12 of the Act of 2015 will lose it's efficacy prejudicing the interest of the Plaintiffs.

¶64

8. Unless this instant application is allowed by passing order/s as prayed for considering the present situation, the interest of the Plaintiffs herein will be severely prejudiced.

¶65

9. This application is made bonafide and for the ends of justice.”

¶66

16. On perusal of the petition seeking exemption from pre-litigation mediation, this Court finds that the only averment made by the plaintiffs is that the termination is ex facie illegal and the sum of Rs.29.61 crores or any part thereof as penalty is also illegal and not recoverable and thereafter, the plaintiffs have simply mentioned that there was great urgency in the matter and delay in filing the suit will cause serious financial hardship unless any ad interim relief is granted in favour of the plaintiffs restraining the defendants from taking further step for realization of the amount.

¶67

17. This Court finds that in the said petition, the plaintiffs have not disclosed the foundational fact contemplating any urgent interim relief inasmuch as the plaintiffs have not disclosed as to the mode in which the defendants would realize the remaining amount. There is no disclosure as to any bills raised by the plaintiffs were pending for payment at the hand of the defendants. Further, there is no mention about any other commercial contract being executed by the plaintiffs of that of the defendants.

¶68

18. This Court is of the considered view that the said petition seeking exemption from pre-litigation mediation as well as the plaint was lacking in minimum particulars for the purposes of satisfying with the precondition of contemplating any urgent interim relief.

¶69

19. This Court finds that the learned court has considered the plaint and the petition and has recorded as follows:

¶70

8

¶71

“Here in the instant suit, I find that as per pleading of plaintiffs, earlier plaintiffs were awarded with a work order for hiring of HEMM for removal and transport of 144.68 L. Cum of OB (including 10 L. Cum of rehanding of OB) extraction and transportation of 37.95 L Te of Coal and 146.10 L. Cum of back-filing of OB at Kapasara OC patch under Mugma Area (7 years production + 3 years back filing) but due to some hindrances in carrying out it's mining activities i.e. extraction of coal dumping it to an earmarked location and transportation of the coal in an organized manner, the plaintiff could not complete the work and informed the defendants for such hindrances but without paying any heed the defendants illegally and arbitrarily terminated the contract and debarred the plaintiffs from participating in any future tender and for which the plaintiffs challenged before the Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi and considering prima facie case made out by the plaintiffs herein, the Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand has been pleased to pass in interim order dated 16.01.2024 restraining the defendants from preventing the plaintiffs in participating in any future tender for the present and direction was given to the Defendants to file counter affidavit. I further find that this suit has been filed for following reliefs:…………………….

¶72

……………………………………………………………………………………… From the face of aforesaid reliefs portion, I do not find any urgency in filing the suit without complying section 12A of Commercial Courts Act, 2015 as nothing will cause damage to the plaintiffs.

¶73

Moreover, in plaint para-32 the plaintiffs has pleaded that the defendants in it's purported letter of termination imposed a penalty to the tune of Rs. 29,61,32,471.42, which they intent to recover from the entitled sum of the plaintiff but I find that the plaintiff has not stated any where in the plaint as well as in the petition for grant of leave to file the suit without complying the provision of 12A that what step has been taken by the defendants to recover the aforesaid imposed penalty Rs. 29,61,32,471.42 and as such, I find that only one the basis of surmises and conjuncture the plaintiffs assumed that the defendants will recover the aforesaid amount. It is settled principle of law that unless any step has been taken for recovery of the money there is no urgency and the matter may be decided in the suit as well as during mediation before institution of this suit u/s 12A of Commercial Courts Act, 2015. In my opinion the financial/monetary loss may be compensated even in the suit, so the monetary or financial loss does not rise any cause to treat this case as urgent and the same does not contemplate any urgent relief under this act. Hence, in my opinion prelitigation mediation and settlement is mandatory in this case.

¶74

I further find that here in this suit the court fee has also been filed along with some documents.

¶75

In this connection, I would like to reproduce the provision of section 80(2) CPC, which is as under :-…………………………………

¶76

Under the facts and circumstances as well as under the prescribed law, I do not find any urgency in filing the suit without complying the provision of section 12A of Commercial Courts Act, 2015. There is no merit to admit this case at this stage without complying the aforesaid provision of section 12A of Commercial Court Act, 2015.

¶77

Hence, the suit is not admitted at this stage and the plaint along with court fee as well as documents filed with this suit is hereby returned with liberty to file the suit after compliance of provision of section 12A of Commercial

¶78

9

¶79

Courts Act 2015.

¶80

Accordingly, this suit is disposed off.”

¶81

20. This Court has gone through the impugned judgment and finds that the learned court was of the view that the plaintiffs had not stated anywhere in the plaint as well as in the petition seeking grant of exemption from complying with the procedure of pre-mediation laid down under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act that what steps have been taken by the defendants to recover the imposed penalty of 29.61 crores and odd.

¶82

21. The Court also finds, as explained above, that the plaintiffs have not mentioned in the plaint, nor in the petition seeking exemption from premediation, how and in what manner the defendants can recover the amount of Rs. 29.61 crores. In the absence of a basic foundational plea regarding the outstanding bills and other contracts between the parties, the learned court has rightly passed the impugned judgment, refusing to entertain the suit without compliance with the provision of pre-mediation. 22. This Court finds that in the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Patil Automation (supra), it has been finally held that the pre-institutional mediation is mandatory. The very introduction of Section 12A has its object and reasons. This Court is of the considered view that the argument of the appellants that in a case of termination of contract, the pre-institutional mediation would be a mere formality is also devoid of any merits. There is no legal bar nor anybody can contemplate as to what can happen in pre-institutional mediation even in the matter of termination of contract particularly when both the parties are undertaking different commercial contracts with each other. Accordingly, the argument of the appellants that the mediation would be a futile exercise is also devoid of any merits.

¶83

23. In the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Yamini Manohar (supra) , it has been held that the words “contemplate any urgent interim relief” in Section 12-A(1) of the Commercial Court Act with reference to the suit, should be read as conferring power on the court to be satisfied. Meaning thereby 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

¶84

10

¶85

the commercial courts will undertake which would be sufficient to keep in check and ensure that the legislative object/intent behind the enactment of Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act is not defeated. Paragraph no. 10 to 12 of the aforesaid judgment is quoted as follows.

¶86

“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, 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.

¶87

11. Having stated so, it is difficult to agree with the proposition that the plaintiff has the absolute choice and right to paralyse Section 12A 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].

¶88

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

¶89

11

¶90

24. This Court is of the considered view that seeking exemption from preinstitutional mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act is not a mere formality. Rather, the same is by way of exception to the general rule of mandatory pre-institution mediation. For seeking exemption, the plaintiffs were required to make specific pleadings and establish a case that falls within the meaning of 'contemplating any urgent interim relief'. For considering the prayer for exemption, the plaint, document and other facts are required to be considered. What was disclosed by the plaintiffs before the court was certainly bereft of particulars in order to come within the meaning of ‘contemplating any urgent interim relief’. The petition seeking exemption from preinstitutional mediation ‘contemplating any urgent interim relief’ is not a mere formality and the same being an exception to the general rule, some material is required to be brought on record to satisfy the court to exercise its sound discretion to grant exemption but no such material was placed before the learned court in the plaint or in the petition seeking exemption. 25. This Court finds that the learned Commercial Court has passed a wellreasoned order refusing to admit the plaint on account of non-compliance of the provisions of Section 12A of the Commercial Court Act. The impugned judgement of the learned commercial court is in consonance with the aforesaid judgements passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. There is already a direction to return the plaint along with court fees and other documents filed by the appellants. There being no merit, this appeal is hereby dismissed.

¶91

26. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed.

¶92

27. Let this judgement be immediately communicated to the court concerned through FAX/e-mail.

¶93

(Ratnaker Bhengra, J.)

¶94

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶95

Saurav/-

¶96

12

M/S Sta Bgm and M Srsc Jv Amidha Thro Its Constituted Attorney Sri Jayanta Sharma v. Eastern Coalfields Ltd. through Office of the Chairman Cum Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Sta Bgm and M Srsc Jv Amidha Thro Its Constituted Attorney Sri Jayanta Sharma v. Eastern Coalfields Ltd. through Office of the Chairman Cum Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Jharkhand through Its Executive Engineer Namely Neelam Sanjeev Minz Vs M/S Alok Coal Agency

The State of Jharkhand through the Deputy Commissioner Vs Ms Bharat Drilling and Foundation Treatment Pvt. Ltd.

The State of Jharkhand through Its Principal Secretary Rural Works Vs M/S Prem Kumar Represented by Its Proprietor Mr Prem Kumar

Dr Mahua Banerjee Vs Xavier Institute of Social Service Xiss