Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Page no. 10 of 37 1-ial-20363-2025-coms-124-2025.doc

12. The plaintiff has pleaded that notices were issued to the defendants for the mediation; however, they failed to participate in the pre-institution mediation till 11th June 2025. It is submitted that in accordance with Section 12-A read with Rule 3(8) of the Commercial Courts (Pre-Institution Mediation and Settlement) Rules, 2018 ("Mediation Rules"), the mediation process was mandatorily required to be completed within three months from the date of receipt of the application for pre-institution mediation by the mediation centre. The prescribed mandatory period of three months expired on 20th June 2025. The plaintiff duly complied with the mandatory requirement under Section 12-A and filed the suit only on 4th July 2025, after the completion of the mandatory three-month period under the Mediation Rules. There is no provision in law requiring a party to persist with the mediation process until a resolution is achieved, notwithstanding the commercial reality of the matter, as this would be counterproductive to the intention of the legislature in introducing Section 12-A.

21. In the present case, from the pleadings, it is apparent that the non-starter report was issued after the suit was filed. The Page no. 18 of 37 1-ial-20363-2025-coms-124-2025.doc non-starter report states that the date of application for pre- institution mediation is 21st March 2025. The non-starter report dated 20th August 2025 records that on 5 th August 2025, the plaintiff requested that the matter be closed, that is, after the suit was filed. According to the plaintiff, after the expiry of the initial three-month period for completion of the mediation process, the plaintiff filed the suit due to the imminent urgency to seek interim relief. It is nobody's case that the initial three- month period was extended by consent as required under the first proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 12-A read with sub- rule (8) of Rule 3 of the Mediation Rules. Therefore, there was nothing for the plaintiff to disclose in the plaint at the time of filing the suit, except the filing of the application under sub- section (1) of Section 12-A and issuance of the notice by the Authority. The plaintiff has therefore disclosed that the application was filed and notice was issued to the defendants. Therefore, there is no suppression of facts. There is no substance in the defendants' argument that, because they deposited the mediation fees and the plaintiff refused to deposit the fees, the plaintiff abandoned the mediation. Deposit of the fees by the defendants, after the expiry of the initial three-month period and in the absence of any extension of the time by Page no. 19 of 37 1-ial-20363-2025-coms-124-2025.doc consent of the parties, as provided under sub-rule (8) of Rule 3 of the said Mediation Rules, cannot be termed as any abandonment of the mediation process by the plaintiff only because the plaintiff did not deposit the mediation fees. It is important to note that, in the meantime, the plaintiff filed the suit seeking urgent interim relief on the cause of action that arose during the pendency of the mediation process, i.e. expiry of the term of the trademark agreements. The plaintiff's intimation to close the mediation is after filing the suit. Thus, there is neither any abandonment of the mediation process on the part of the plaintiff, nor is there any suppression of fact. Hence, there is no merit in the allegation made by the defendants regarding the suppression of facts. The decision in Nagina Ramsagar Choube would not be of any assistance to the defendants. Hence, in the facts of the present case, it is not necessary to discuss the point as to whether the suit can be dismissed at a preliminary stage on the allegation of suppression of material facts.

35. In the exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 21-A read with sub-section (1) of Section 12-A of the said Act, the Central Government has notified the said Mediation Rules. Rule 3 of the said Mediation Rules requires a party to a commercial dispute to make an application to the Authority in the prescribed form for initiating the mediation process. Thereafter, the Authority has to issue notice in the prescribed form to the opposite party in the manner provided under the said Mediation Rules. If there is no response, the Authority shall issue a final notice, and when the notice remains unacknowledged or if the opposite party refuses to participate in the mediation process, the Authority shall treat the mediation process as a non-starter and make a report as per the Page no. 30 of 37 1-ial-20363-2025-coms-124-2025.doc prescribed form and endorse the same to the applicant and the opposite party. If the opposite party appears and both parties consent to participate in the mediation process, the Authority shall assign the commercial dispute to a mediator. Sub-rule (8) of Rule 3 provides that the Authority shall complete the process within three months, subject to a two-month extension with the consent of the parties.

40. Sub-section (3) of Section 12-A of the said Act provides for a period of 120 days from the date of application under sub- section (1) of Section 12-A of the said Act to the Authority under the said Mediation Rules to complete the process of mediation, with a proviso to sub-section (3) for extension of the said period for further 60 days with consent of the parties. However, under sub-rule (8) of Rule 3 of the said Mediation Rules, the Authority is duty-bound to ensure that the mediation process is completed within three months, subject to a two-month extension with the consent of the parties. The non-starter report can be issued as provided under sub-rules (4) or (6) of Rule 3 of the Mediation Rules in the event the opponent fails to appear or refuses to participate in the mediation process. The non-starter report Page no. 34 of 37 1-ial-20363-2025-coms-124-2025.doc annexed to the rejoinder affidavit shows that the application for pre-institution mediation was filed on 21 st March 2025, that the applicant did not pay the mediation fees, and that, on 5 th August 2025, the applicant requested that the matter be closed. The notice to pay the mediation fee annexed to the rejoinder affidavit is dated 20th June 2025. Thus, the Authority issues the notice to pay the mediation fee on the last day of the initial three-month period provided under sub-rule (8) of Rule 3 of the said Mediation Rules. It is nobody's case that the period was extended by consent, as contemplated under the Mediation Rules. Hence, after the expiry of the initial three-month period, the plaintiff filed the suit on 2 nd July 2025, along with an application for interim relief.