LexM/S. PATIL AUTOMATION PRIVATE LIMITED AND ORS. versus RAKHEJA ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 808 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 11 S.C.R. 808 [2022] 11 S.C.R. 808 M/S. PATIL AUTOMATION PRIVATE LIMITED AND ORS. v. RAKHEJA ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED (Civil Appeal No. 5333 of 2022) AUGUST 17, 2022 [K. M. JOSEPH AND HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.] Commercial Courts Act, 2015 – s.12A – Statutory pre-institution mediation contemplated u/s.12A – Held: Is mandatory – Exhausting pre-institution mediation by the plaintiff, with all the benefits that may accrue to the parties and, more importantly, the justice delivery system as a whole, would make s.12A not a mere procedural provision – The design and scope of the Act, as amended in 2018, by which s.12A was inserted, would make it clear that Parliament intended to give it a mandatory flavour – Any other interpretation would not only be in the teeth of the express language used but, more importantly, result in frustration of the object of the Act and the Rules – Any suit instituted violating the mandate of s.12A must be visited with rejection of the plaint under Or. VII r. 11 CPC – This power can be exercised even suo moto by the court – This declaration effective from 20.08.2022 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order VII r.11. Mediation – Role of the Bar – Held: Mediation offers a completely new approach to attaining the goal of justice – A win- win situation resulting from assigning a greater role to the parties themselves, with no doubt, a spirit of accommodation represents a better and what is more in the era of docket explosion, the only meaningful choice – The role of the Bar is vital in taking mediation forward – It is important that the courts also adapt to the changing times. Interpretation of Statutes – Golden rule of interpretation – Held: The decisive element in the search for the answer, in the interpretation of a Statute, must be to ascertain the intention of the Legislature – The first principle must be the golden rule of interpretation, which means, the interpretation in conformity with the plain language, which is used. A B C D E F G H 809 Mediation – Statutory pre-institution mediation contemplated u/s.12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 – Held: Is provided only in suits, which do not contemplate any urgent interim relief – Therefore, pre-institution mediation has been mandated only in a class of suits – This is for the reason that in suits which contemplate urgent interim relief, the Law-giver has carefully vouchsafed immediate access to justice as contemplated ordinarily through the courts – The carving out of a class of suits and selecting them for compulsory mediation, harmonises with the attainment of the object of the law – Commercial Courts Act, 2015 – s.12A. Code of Civil Procedure,1908 – Or.VII, r.11– No absolute right to file civil suit – A civil suit can be barred by a law, either expressly or by necessary implication – The jurisdiction of a civil court can be ousted – There is no fundamental right with anyone to contend that he has a right to file a civil suit, which cannot be taken away – Presence of Order VII Rule 11(d) which mandates rejection of a plaint where a suit is barred is a reminder of the principle that there is no absolute right to file a civil suit. Code of Civil Procedure,1908 – Order VII, r.11(d) – Stage at which power to reject plaint can be exercised – Whether the power under the rule can be exercised only on application filed by defendant – Held: Or.VII r.11 does not provide that the court is to discharge its duty of rejecting the plaint only on an application – Power u/Or. VII r.11 is available to the court to be exercised suo motu – In a clear case, where on allegations in the suit, it is found that the suit is barred by any law, the plaint should be rejected without issuing summons. Disposing of the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 cannot be described as a mere procedural law. Exhausting pre- institution mediation by the plaintiff, with all the benefits that may accrue to the parties and, more importantly, the justice delivery system as a whole, would make Section 12A not a mere procedural provision. The design and scope of the Act, as amended in 2018, by which Section 12A was inserted, would make it clear that Parliament intended to give it a mandatory flavour. Any other interpretation would not only be in the teeth of the express language used but, more importantly, result in frustration of the M/S. PATIL AUTOMATION PRIVATE LIMITED AND ORS. v. RAKHEJA ENGINEERS PRIVAT
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.