Section 12A: Pre-Institution Mediation and Settlement

Commercial Courts Act, 2015 • Official Statutory Text & Practice Guide

Statutory Regulation
Legal Standard
Commercial Court / High Court
Act 4 of 2016
Statutory Defined Terms in this Section: (Click any term for official legal definition)
Statutory Prescribed Forms

Commercial Courts (PIMS) Rules, 2018: Forms 1 to 6 & Fee Slabs

Access official Form 1 Application, Form 2 Notice, Form 3 Non-Starter Report, Form 4 Settlement, Form 5 Failure Report, and Schedule II Fee Slabs.

View All Statutory Forms

Legal Commentary & Landmark Judgments: Section 12A

Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 mandates Pre-Institution Mediation and Settlement (PIMS) as a compulsory statutory prerequisite before instituting a commercial suit that does not contemplate urgent interim relief.

  • Statutory Relief & Application: Inserted by the 2018 Amendment, Section 12A(1) commands that a suit which does not contemplate any urgent interim relief 'shall not be instituted' unless the plaintiff first exhausts the remedy of pre-institution mediation through authorities constituted under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987.
  • Core Legal Standard: The mediation process must be completed within three months, extendable by two months with mutual consent.

Under sub-section (3), the period spent in mediation is excluded from limitation under the Limitation Act, 1963.

Sub-section (4) provides that any settlement arrived at through PIMS shall have the status and effect of an arbitral award under Section 30(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, rendering it directly enforceable as an executable decree of court without requiring a separate declaratory civil suit.

Key Landmark Precedents:
  • Patil Automation (P) Ltd. v. Rakheja Engineers (P) Ltd., (2022) 10 SCC 1: The Supreme Court declared Section 12A to be mandatory; suits filed without exhausting pre-institution mediation (in the absence of genuine urgent interim relief) are liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC with prospective effect from August 20, 2022.
  • Yamini Manohar v. T.K.D. Keerthi, (2024) 5 SCC 815: The Supreme Court clarified that when urgent interim relief is prayed for, the court must examine whether the urgency is genuine and contemplated on the face of the plaint, rather than a mere sham or artificial device to circumvent Section 12A mediation.
Legal Commentary:

Section 12A is a transformative procedural mandate. Plaintiffs cannot bypass mediation merely by inserting a perfunctory interim prayer. The commercial court exercises judicial scrutiny to ascertain if real, imminent harm exists; if the urgency is simulated, the plaint will be rejected under Order VII Rule 11. Conversely, if a settlement is achieved, it possesses finality and immediate enforceability as an arbitral award.