Delhi High Court - Orders
Pidilite Industries Limited vs Mr Rishi Talwar on 21 April, 2026
$~15
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(COMM) 339/2026
PIDILITE INDUSTRIES LIMITED .....Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Saurabh Kirpal, Sr. Advocate
with Mr. Ashish Jha, Mr. Gaurav Vutts, Mr.
Ayush Raj, Mr. Junaid Amir and Mr. Pranav
Sarthi, Advocates.
versus
MR RISHI TALWAR .....Defendant
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN
ORDER
% 21.04.2026 I.A. 8638/2026 (under Section 151 CPC on behalf of plaintiff for exemption of lengthy list of dates and synopsis)
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. Application stands disposed of.
I.A. 8639/2026 (under Section 149 read with Section 151 CPC on behalf of plaintiff seeking extension of time in depositing the requisite court fee)
3. This is an application seeking extension of time to pay the deficient court fee.
4. On instructions, Mr. Saurabh Kirpal learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff submits that the deficient Court Fee has already been paid. The statement is taken on record.
5. In view of the above statement, the application stands disposed of.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/04/2026 at 20:51:32 I.A. 9645/2026 (under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act read with Section 151 CPC on behalf of the plaintiff, seeking exemption from institution of pre-litigation mediation)
6. By way of present application, plaintiff seeks exemption from pre- litigation mediation.
7. It is stated in the application that the plaintiff is seeking urgent relief of interim injunction against the defendant, under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and hence, the present application is being filed by way of abundant caution, to seek express exemption from conducting mediation with the defendant prior to the institution of the present suit.
8. Mr. Kirpal submits that the plaintiff has sought interim relief in the present suit and such relief should be seen from the stand point of the plaintiff.
9. He submits that the plaintiff is seeking urgent interim relief and therefore is constrained to file this application for exemption from pre- litigation mediation as mandated under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
10. He further submits that the present case involves an egregious and calculated default by the defendant. The defendant not only failed to clear the admitted outstanding liability but also deliberately closed the bank account on which the three security cheques, amounting to Rs.4,98,31,215.82/, were drawn.
11. He argues that the defendant's conduct of seeking repeated extensions via emails while simultaneously closing his bank accounts demonstrates a clear intent to defraud the plaintiff.
12. He further argues that in case the urgent relief is not granted to the plaintiff, there is a high possibility that the defendant would dissipate the This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/04/2026 at 20:51:32 goods of the plaintiff currently lying in the premise under the control of the defendant.
13. To buttress his contentions, he places reliance of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s Patil Automation Private Limited & Ors. v. Rakheja Engineers Private Limited, Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 14697 of 2021 and decision of this Court in Upgrad Education Private Limited v Intellipaat Software Solutions Private Limited, CS (COMM 132 of 2022).
14. At the outset, it would be apt to reproduce Section 12A of the Act which reads as under:
"12A. Pre-Institution Mediation and Settlement.--
(1) A suit, which does not contemplate any urgent interim relief under this Act, shall not be instituted unless the plaintiff exhausts the remedy of preinstitution mediation in accordance with such manner and procedure as may be prescribed by rules made by the Central Government.
(2) The Central Government may, by notification, authorise the Authorities constituted under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (39 of 1987), for the purposes of pre-institution mediation.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (39 of 1987), the Authority authorised by the Central Government under sub-section (2) shall complete the process of mediation within a period of three months from the date of application made by the plaintiff under sub-section (1):
Provided that the period of mediation may be extended for a further period of two months with the consent of the parties:
Provided further that, the period during which the parties remained occupied with the pre-institution mediation, such This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/04/2026 at 20:51:32 period shall not be computed for the purpose of limitation under the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963).
(4) If the parties to the commercial dispute arrive at a settlement, the same shall be reduced into writing and shall be signed by the parties to the dispute and the mediator.
(5) The settlement arrived at under this section shall have the same status and effect as if it is an arbitral award on agreed terms under sub-section (4) of section 30 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996).]"
15. The law regarding the mandatory nature of Section 12A and the exceptions thereto is now well-settled. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Yamini Manohar vs. T.K.D. Keerthi, (2024) 5 SCC 815 held that while pre- litigation mediation is mandatory, the Commercial Court must independently apply its judicial mind to assess whether the suit contemplates 'urgent interim relief'. The Court clarified that the urgency cannot be a mere camouflage or an illusory plea drafted solely to bypass the statutory mandate of mediation; rather, the Court must evaluate the nature of the commercial dispute, the conduct of the parties, and the imminent threat to the plaintiff's rights to determine if the prayer for urgent interim relief is bona fide. The relevant part of the decision reads as under:
"10. We are of the opinion that when a plaint is filed under the CC Act, with a prayer for an urgent interim relief, the commercial court should examine the nature and the subject- matter of the suit, the cause of action, and the prayer for interim relief. The prayer for urgent interim relief should not be a disguise or mask to wriggle out of and get over Section 12-A of the CC Act. The facts and circumstances of the case have to be considered holistically from the standpoint of the plaintiff. Non-grant of interim relief at the ad interim stage, when the plaint is taken up for registration/admission and examination, will not justify dismissal of the commercial suit under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code; at times, interim relief is This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/04/2026 at 20:51:32 granted after issuance of notice. Nor can the suit be dismissed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code, because the interim relief, post the arguments, is denied on merits and on examination of the three principles, namely : (i) prima facie case, (ii) irreparable harm and injury, and (iii) balance of convenience. The fact that the court issued notice and/or granted interim stay may indicate that the court is inclined to entertain the plaint.
11. Having stated so, it is difficult to agree with the proposition that the plaintiff has the absolute choice and right to paralyse Section 12-A of the CC Act by making a prayer for urgent interim relief. Camouflage and guise to bypass the statutory mandate of pre-litigation mediation should be checked when deception and falsity is apparent or established. The proposition that the commercial courts do have a role, albeit a limited one, should be accepted, otherwise it would be up to the plaintiff alone to decide whether to resort to the procedure under Section 12-A of the CC Act. An "absolute and unfettered right" approach is not justified if the pre- institution mediation under Section 12-A of the CC Act is mandatory, as held by this Court in Patil Automation [Patil Automation (P) Ltd. v. Rakheja Engineers (P) Ltd., (2022) 10 SCC1:(2023) 1 SCC (Civ) 545]
12. The words "contemplate any urgent interim relief" in Section 12-A(1) of the CC Act, with reference to the suit, should be read as conferring power on the court to be satisfied. They suggest that the suit must "contemplate", which means the plaint, documents and facts should show and indicate the need for an urgent interim relief. This is the precise and limited exercise that the commercial courts will undertake, the contours of which have been explained in the earlier paragraph(s). This will be sufficient to keep in check and ensure that the legislative object/intent behind the enactment of Section 12-A of the CC Act is not defeated."
(emphasis supplied)
16. Having regard to the fact that the defendant's conduct, especially the deliberate closure of bank accounts to evade admitted liabilities and the imminent threat of dissipating the goods currently under his control, This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/04/2026 at 20:51:32 demonstrates that the urgency pleaded by the plaintiff is bona fide and not a mere camouflage designed to bypass the statutory mandate. Further, this Court is also contemplating granting ad interim relief to the plaintiff in its application numbered IA 8637/2026 under Order 39 rules 1 and 2 CPC read with Section 151 CPC.
17. Therefore, in light of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Yamini Manohar (supra), the plaintiff has successfully established that the suit contemplates urgent interim relief, thereby warranting dispensation from the statutory mandate of Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
18. In view of the above, present application is allowed and the plaintiff is exempted from initiating pre-institution mediation.
19. The application is disposed of.
CS(COMM) 339/2026
20. The plaint be registered as suit.
21. On filing of process fee, summons be issued to the defendant by all permissible modes.
22. The summons shall indicate that written statement must be filed within thirty days from the date of receipt of summons. The defendant shall also file an affidavit of admission/denial of the documents filed by the plaintiffs, failing which the written statement shall not be taken on record.
23. The plaintiffs are at liberty to file replication thereto within thirty days after filing of the written statement. The replication shall be accompanied by affidavit of admission/denial in respect of the documents filed by the defendant, failing which the replication shall not be taken on record.
24. It is made clear that any unjustified denial of documents may lead to an order of costs against the concerned party.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/04/2026 at 20:51:32
25. Any party seeking inspection of documents may do so in accordance with the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018.
26. List before the learned Joint Registrar for completion of service, pleadings, admission/denial of documents and marking of exhibits on 10.07.2026.
27. List before Court thereafter on a date to be assigned by the learned Joint Registrar.
I.A. 8637/2026 (under Order XXXIX rules 1 and 2 CPC on behalf of plaintiff, seeking injunction, attachment of bank accounts and maintain status quo till disposal of the Commercial Civil Suit)
28. Issue notice to the defendant, by all permissible modes.
29. The present application has been filed seeking interim reliefs detailed in the prayer clause.
30. It is stated that the applicant/plaintiff is a public limited company while the non-applicant/defendant is the sole proprietor of a proprietorship concern namely 'Diamond Agencies'. The defendant is the authorised stockist of the applicant/plaintiff in New Delhi.
31. It is stated in the application that the defendant has provided bank account and security cheques for being the 'Authorised Stockist' of the Plaintiff at New Delhi. The defendant has been making payments to applicant/ Plaintiff from some time through various bank accounts other than the designated bank account provided by the defendant to plaintiff.
32. It is further stated that from mid-2025 onwards, the defendant failed to make payments with regard to goods and invoices raised by plaintiff on the defendant. The plaintiff continuously followed up and reminded the defendant that he is to clear the outstanding invoices for goods supplied by plaintiff concerning various divisions. Despite this the defendant has This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/04/2026 at 20:51:32 miserably failed to pay and clear the payments against invoices, by giving frivolous reasons best known to the non-applicant/defendant.
33. It is also stated that due to continuous defaults, the plaintiff presented three security cheques. However, in a move demonstrating mala fides, all the three cheques i.e.- (i) Cheque No. 33240652 for Rs. 3,12,44,474.77/- (hereinafter referred as 'Cheque No. 1'); (ii) Cheque No. 33161172 for Rs. 35,22,211.38/- (hereinafter referred as 'Cheque No. 2') and (iii) Cheque No. 33161166 for Rs. 1,50,64,529.67/- (hereinafter referred as 'Cheque No. 3'), were dishonoured and returned with the remark 'account closed' on 21.02.2026 and 23.02.2026. The total amount of the three security cheques amount to Rs.4,98,31,215.82/-
34. Mr. Saurabh Kirpal, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant/plaintiff submits that business relationship between the parties is governed by an updated Authorised Stockist Undertaking (hereinafter after referred as 'Undertaking') dated 20.06.2025, which is stated to be digitally signed. As per the terms of the said undertaking the defendant was mandated to maintain sufficient post-dated cheques with the plaintiff towards any default.
35. He draws the attention of this Court to Clause 5.6 of the 'Undertaking' wherein the defendant irrevocably authorized the plaintiff to fill in the cheque date and amount due as per the Books of Accounts, and to present the same for payment towards all outstanding amounts. The said clause is reproduced below:
"5.6 I hereby irrevocably and unconditionally authorise PIL to complete the cheques issued by me and fill in the cheque date and amount due as per the Books of Accounts (under all the codes) maintained by PIL and further irrevocably authorize PIL to present the said cheque(s) for payment and ensure to pay all the outstanding amounts including for the price of the goods sold by This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/04/2026 at 20:51:32 PIL to us, applicable debit note applied by PIL in case of delays or deficiencies in payments such as Cheque and NACH dishonour or rejections, RTGS delays, PDC non-availability, non tendering of requisite statutory form etc. or any such sums which are due as per PIL Policies and Guidelines."
36. He further places reliance on Clause 5.10 of the 'Undertaking' which expressly provides a contractual remedy to the plaintiff to secure its goods. The said clause reads thus:
"5.10 I shall be solely responsible for paying PIL for the price of goods/ products purchased and I am aware that in case of default of payment and/or non-payment, PIL shall be entitled to levy bank charges and take the stock back as per policy."
(emphasis supplied)
37. To buttress his contentions, Mr. Kirpal draws attention of the Court to e-mails dated 07.10.2025, 08.11.2025 and 27.12.2025, whereby the defendant has acknowledged the defaults and also confirmed that he would commence the payments of the same, but despite such confirmation, no payment was made by the defendant.
38. He argues that the closure of the designated bank account is a calculated precipitative action to frustrate the plaintiff's legitimate dues. He expresses a reasonable apprehension that the defendant is attempting to fritter away the remaining assets, inventory, and the sale proceeds of the stock through other operational bank accounts, which would cause severe financial losses and render the execution of any future decree impossible.
39. Having heard the contentions of the learned counsel for the plaintiff and upon perusal of the record, this Court prima facie finds that the defendant has repeatedly and unequivocally admitted to the outstanding liability in multiple written communications.
40. The deliberate closure of the bank account on which the security This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/04/2026 at 20:51:32 cheques were drawn, despite continuous written reassurances of payment, reflects a prima facie intent to evade financial obligations and defeat the plaintiff's claims. Furthermore, Clause 5.10 of the 'Undertaking' vests the plaintiff with the contractual right to reclaim its stock in the event of such a default.
41. In light of the aforementioned circumstances, this Court is of the view that the plaintiff has established a prima facie case for the grant of ad- interim relief. The balance of convenience also tilts in favour of the plaintiff. I am also of the view that irreparable injury is likely to be caused to the plaintiff, if defendant is not restrained from disposing of the stock.
42. Consequently, till the next date of hearing, to protect the plaintiff's rights enshrined under Clause 5.10 of the 'Undertaking', the defendant, his agents, or representatives are restrained from alienating, transferring, disposing of, or creating any third-party rights over the products, stock-in- trade, and stock of goods supplied by the plaintiff, currently lying at the defendant's premises, godowns, or depots.
43. Provisions of Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC be complied with qua the defendant within three weeks from today and affidavit of compliance be filed within a week thereafter.
44. Reply be filed within two weeks. Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed before the next date.
45. Re-notify on 20.07.2026.
I.A. 10147/2026 (under Order 26 rule 9 read with Section 151 CPC on behalf of the plaintiff, seeking appointment of Local Commissioner)
46. By way of the present application, the plaintiff has prayed for appointment of Local Commissioner for examination, inspection, search and seizure of all the plaintiff's products which are in possession and are lying This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/04/2026 at 20:51:32 with the defendant having packaging/label/wrappers and or other materials having plaintiff's mark.
47. Issue notice the defendant, by all permissible modes.
48. However, Mr. Kirpal urges the Court that the Local Commissioner may be appointed for the limited purpose of inventorising the goods lying in the premises which is under the lock and key of the defendant.
49. In view of the limited prayer articulated, and regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case noted herein above, this Court is of the view that the Local Commissioner needs to be appointed for the purpose articulated by Mr. Kirpal.
50. Accordingly, Mr. Ujjwal Tyagi, Advocate [Mob. 9354181841] is appointed as Local Commissioner to visit the following two premises mentioned in the instant application wherein the goods manufactured by the plaintiff are lying, and inventorize the same:
i. MR. RISHI TALWAR Sole Proprietor, DIAMOND AGENCIES, Basement, House No. 64, Samrat Enclave, Pitampura, North West Delhi, Delhi- 110034 GSTIN: 07AABPT7714R1ZZ Email: [email protected] ii. MR. RISHI TALWAR Sole Proprietor, DIAMOND AGENCIES 75-A, Samrat Enclave, Pitampura, North-West Delhi- 110034 Mobile- 9810412122 PAN- AABPT7714R
51. He may take photographs or mark the stock lying there for the purpose of identification, and make them as part of his report.
52. The remuneration of the Local Commissioner is quantified at This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/04/2026 at 20:51:32 Rs.2,50,000/-, besides out of pocket expenses, which shall be paid by the plaintiff to the Local Commissioner in advance.
53. The SHO of the concerned police station is also directed to provide police aid to the local commissioner, if the situation so warrants.
54. Before visiting the premises mentioned in the instant application, the Local Commissioner shall intimate the learned counsel for the plaintiff, who shall cooperate with the Local Commissioner to enable him to execute commission.
55. Let Local Commissioner file his report within three weeks.
56. Let reply to the application be filed by the defendant within a period of four weeks. Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed before the next date.
57. List on 20.07.2026.
VIKAS MAHAJAN, J APRIL 15, 2026/jg This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/04/2026 at 20:51:32