Pre-Institution Mediation – Court’s Inquiry cannot prejudice merits of injunction
Judgment dated 5.8.2026 of the High Court of Bombay (AS) in Commercial First Appeal No.15 of 2026 of High Point Supply Company LLC Vs. Agati Healthcare Private Limited
Appellant had failed to establish any genuine urgency justifying exemption from pre-institution mediation. In addition, the Trial Court also held that the pleadings regarding ‘urgency’ were vague and unsupported by particulars and that the dispute essentially concerned quantifiable commercial losses, capable of monetary compensation. The Trial Court further held that the prayers for interim injunction and preservation of exclusivity were merely a ‘camouflage’ to bypass the statutory mediation requirement prescribed under Section 12-A of the CC Act. Consequently, the plaint filed by the Appellant was rejected.’
The question, therefore, is not whether the Appellant has, in fact, established a prima facie case for grant of an injunction or whether the interim application ultimately deserves to be allowed. Nor is the enquiry directed towards determining whether damages would ultimately constitute an adequate remedy. The sole question which fell for consideration before the Trial Court was whether, upon a meaningful and holistic reading of the plaint, the documents annexed thereto and the attendant facts and circumstances existing on the date of institution of the suit, the Appellant had disclosed a bona fide factual foundation demonstrating that the suit genuinely contemplated urgent interim relief within the meaning of Section 12-A(1) of the CC Act. It is the correctness of the Trial Court’s approach to this limited jurisdictional enquiry that falls for consideration in the present Appeal.
In our opinion, the impugned order also discloses a conflation of two distinct enquiries. The first enquiry, contemplated by Section 12-A(1), is jurisdictional in nature and is confined to determining whether the present suit genuinely contemplates urgent interim relief. The second concerns the grant or refusal of interim relief on merits, which necessarily involves consideration of the existence of a prima facie case, balance of convenience, irreparable injury and the adequacy of damages. The Trial Court, while considering the application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code, entered upon matters falling within the latter enquiry and thereby effectively prejudged issues which properly arise for consideration while deciding the interim application. Such an approach is inconsistent with the limited scope of examination envisaged by Section 12-A(1) of the CC Act and the law laid down by the Supreme Court and this Court
