A division bench of the Madras High Court comprising of Shri Brian D’ Silva & Shri Sarabvir Singh Oberoi expounded that as the appellants had also requested for an interim relief, therefore, their lawsuit did not violate Section 12A of the Act. Further, it was stated that one cannot be declared ineligible for relief for failing to comply with this requirement under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act.
Brief Facts:
A lawsuit was filed by the appellants/plaintiffs against the defendants/respondents, and the trial court also heard numerous applications related to the lawsuit in the trial. A permanent injunction and compensation were among the things they had asked for. Due to a lack of jurisdiction and a failure to comply with Section 12A of the Act, the Appellants' Plaint was dismissed in accordance with Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Aggrieved by the order, the Appellants filed an appeal to the Court.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The appellants claimed that the lower court had not considered the averments in their plaint. It was maintained that their pleadings and the records made available to the trial court in their case explained why each court had jurisdiction to hear the case. It was also noted that the lawsuit was exempt from the provisions of Section 12-A of the Act because the lower court's pleadings were supported by many motions requesting interim relief. It was therefore prayed that the impugned order be set aside.
Contentions of the Respondents:
The Respondents submitted that the order issued by the court was valid and did not suffer from any infirmity.
Observations of the Court:
The court observed that pre-institution mediation is a requirement in commercial lawsuits where interim relief is asked for; as such, the plaintiff cannot be declared ineligible for relief for failing to comply with this requirement under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts.
It is mandated only in a class of suits. It noted that the impugned order did not deal with the specific averments made by the Appellants in their Plaint with respect to jurisdiction; therefore, it can be interfered with. Further, Court stated that because the appellants had also requested interim relief, their lawsuit did not violate Section 12A of the Act.
Decision:
The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside. The Court further directed the trial court to rehear the Appellants on the question of territorial jurisdiction and pass an order afresh in accordance with the law.
Case Title: OMFR Pipes and Products vs Itarsi Pipe Sales
Coram: Justice Sujoy Paul & Justice Amar Nath (Kesharwani)
Case No: Misc. Appeal No. 439 of 2023
Advocates for Petitioner: Shri Brian D’ Silva & Shri Sarabvir Singh Oberoi
Advocate for Respondent: None
Read Order @LatestLaws.com:
Picture Source :
