Filing a commercial suit without first attempting pre-institution mediation can get your plaint rejected, unless the suit genuinely contemplates urgent interim relief. Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 was designed to push commercial disputes toward settlement before litigation begins, but its central exception, "urgent interim relief," has generated years of litigation of its own over what actually counts. A 2026 Madras High Court ruling adds the latest word on where that line sits.
What Section 12A(1) actually requires
Section 12A(1) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 requires a plaintiff to exhaust the remedy of pre-institution mediation before instituting a commercial suit that does not contemplate any urgent interim relief. In practice, this means: before filing, the prospective plaintiff must attempt mediation through the process notified for this purpose (typically the pre-litigation mediation cells set up under the framework, now overlapping with the Mediation Act, 2023). Only if the parties fail to settle, or the process concludes without resolution, can the suit actually be instituted. Suits filed in breach of this requirement have been held liable to rejection, with courts applying Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which permits a plaint to be rejected where it does not disclose a proper cause of action or fails to meet a mandatory statutory precondition.
The exception: what counts as "urgent interim relief"?
The statute exempts suits that "contemplate any urgent interim relief," but courts have made clear this is not a phrase a plaintiff can invoke simply by writing the words into the prayer clause. The leading Supreme Court authority on this point is Yamini Manohar v. T.K.D. Keerthi (2023), in which the Court, per a bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and S.V.N. Bhatti, held that the word "contemplate" means to deliberate and consider, and that courts must be satisfied, from the plaint, the documents filed, and the facts of the case, that urgent interim relief is genuinely being sought, not just formally prayed for as a device to skip mediation. As reported by SCC OnLine's coverage of the ruling, the Court explicitly rejected the idea that Section 12A gives plaintiffs an "absolute and unfettered right" to bypass mediation, and warned against allowing the urgency exception to become a "camouflage and guise" for avoiding the statutory mandate.
A more recent Madras High Court decision applied and refined this standard. In Aarthi Scans (P) Ltd. v. Konica Minolta Business Solutions India (P) Ltd., 2026 SCC OnLine Mad 2440, decided in late February 2026, Justice S. Sounthar set aside a Commercial Court order that had returned a plaint for non-compliance with Section 12A. As summarised in SCC OnLine's report on the ruling, the Court held that at the plaint-filing stage, the relief sought needs to appear "plausibly urgent" based on the plaintiff's pleadings, and does not need to be conclusively established or ultimately granted at that early stage for the mediation exemption to apply. At the same time, the Court reiterated the need for vigilance, holding that it could not treat an interim-relief prayer as genuine where it is, in substance, a "camouflage" to bypass the mandatory pre-institution mediation procedure. Verify this citation independently against the official SCC OnLine record before relying on it in a filing, since case-law citation details are worth double-checking against the primary source.
Two categories of commercial suits
Reading the Supreme Court's and Madras High Court's positions together, commercial suits effectively fall into two buckets for Section 12A purposes:
- Suits that genuinely contemplate urgent interim relief, where the plaint and supporting documents plausibly show a real, present need for interim protection (for example, a genuine risk of an asset being dissipated or a status quo being irreversibly altered before mediation could realistically conclude). These are exempt from the pre-institution mediation requirement.
- Suits that do not, where no such urgency is shown, or where the urgency plea is included mainly to sidestep mediation. These must go through pre-institution mediation first, or risk rejection.
Q&A: is your claimed urgency likely to hold up?
Does simply asking for an injunction in the prayer clause count as urgent interim relief?
Not automatically. Courts look past the label to whether the plaint's own facts and documents support a real, present need for the relief, not just its formal inclusion in the prayer.
Does the relief have to be granted for the exemption to apply?
No. Per the Madras High Court's 2026 ruling, the relief only needs to appear plausibly urgent at the plaint-filing stage; whether it is ultimately sustainable or granted is a separate question decided later on merits.
What if a court decides the urgency claim was a device to avoid mediation?
The court can treat the Section 12A precondition as unmet and reject or return the plaint, sending the parties back to attempt mediation before the suit can be properly instituted.
Can this determination be challenged later, once the suit is already proceeding?
Yes, an opposing party can raise non-compliance with Section 12A as a ground for rejection of the plaint at any appropriate stage, and appellate courts have entertained challenges to how the trial court assessed urgency; each case ultimately turns on its own pleadings.
Practical takeaway for businesses and their counsel
If you are considering commercial litigation in India and there is no genuine, document-backed urgency, budget for the pre-institution mediation step before drafting your plaint; skipping it on the assumption that a bare urgency prayer will suffice is a real risk of delay, not a shortcut. Conversely, if there genuinely is urgency, for example, a real and imminent risk to assets or evidence, that urgency should be reflected concretely in the plaint and supporting documents from the outset, since courts are now explicitly on guard against urgency pleas that look like an afterthought.
For related recovery routes, see our guide to Order 37 CPC summary suits for documented debts, and our explainer on enforcing foreign arbitral awards in India if your commercial dispute involves a cross-border arbitration angle.
Disclaimer: This article is for general information only and is not legal advice. Whether pre-institution mediation applies to your specific matter depends on its facts; consult a qualified advocate before filing or responding to a commercial suit.
Frequently asked questions
Do I have to attempt mediation before filing every commercial suit?
Yes, unless your suit genuinely contemplates urgent interim relief. Section 12A(1) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 requires a plaintiff to exhaust the pre-institution mediation process before instituting a commercial suit that does not contemplate any urgent interim relief.
What happens if I file a commercial suit without attempting mediation first?
The suit is liable to be rejected. Courts have applied this through Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which allows a plaint to be rejected where it doesn't disclose a cause of action for the relief actually available, when the mandatory pre-institution mediation step was skipped without a genuine urgent-relief justification.
Can I bypass mediation just by asking for interim relief in my plaint?
No. The Supreme Court has rejected the interpretation that a plaintiff has an absolute, unfettered right to bypass mediation merely by including a prayer for urgent interim relief. Courts examine the plaint, the supporting documents, and the actual facts to see whether the relief sought is genuinely urgent, not just asserted.
What did the Madras High Court say about urgent interim relief in 2026?
In a February 2026 ruling, the Madras High Court held that pre-institution mediation is not mandatory where a suit genuinely contemplates urgent interim relief, and that at the plaint-filing stage, the relief sought needs to appear plausibly urgent based on the plaintiff's pleadings, not conclusively provable at that stage. It cautioned, however, against using an urgency plea as a mere camouflage to sidestep the mandatory mediation requirement.
Who decides whether the pre-institution mediation requirement applies?
The commercial court itself, when the plaint is filed, assesses whether the suit genuinely contemplates urgent interim relief based on the pleadings and documents presented. If it finds the urgency claim is not genuine, or is being used to bypass mediation, it can return or reject the plaint for non-compliance with Section 12A.