Bombay High Court Hears Defendants’ Interim Applications for Rejection of Plaint in Commercial Suit on Grounds of Non-Compliance with Section 12-A Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and Bar Under SARFAESI Act. Applications Filed by Financial Institution Defendants Against Real Estate Borrower Group.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY
  • 2
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The dispute arises from a commercial suit filed by the plaintiffs against three defendants, seeking specific performance of a Framework Agreement dated 20 December 2024. The plaintiffs are part of the Mordani Group, engaged in real estate development, while defendant nos. 1 and 2 are non-banking financial companies that had extended loan facilities to the plaintiffs. Defendant no. 3 was a nominee developer under the Framework Agreement. The Framework Agreement purportedly settled all outstanding loan facilities, but contained a clause that if the plaintiffs failed to perform certain obligations by close of business on 31 December 2024, the agreement would automatically and forthwith stand revoked, cancelled and terminated. It was admitted by the plaintiffs that they did not comply with their obligations within the stipulated time. Nevertheless, the plaintiffs filed the suit without first resorting to pre-litigation mediation as required under Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, claiming urgency because the defendants were allegedly taking precipitative steps against secured assets. The plaintiffs sought injunctions restraining the defendants from dealing with three real estate projects and from enforcing securities. The defendants filed interim applications under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking rejection of the plaint on three main grounds: (1) non-compliance with the mandatory pre-litigation mediation under Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, (2) the suit being barred under Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, and (3) the suit being barred under Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. Learned senior counsel for defendant no. 1 argued that a meaningful reading of the plaint was required and that the test for urgency to bypass Section 12-A is not whether the interim relief is actually granted, but whether the prayer for urgent interim relief is genuinely contemplable and not a mere camouflage. Counsel for defendant no. 2 supported these submissions and additionally pressed the bars under the Specific Relief Act and SARFAESI Act. The court heard the applications and reserved judgment on 23 December 2025, but the available text does not record the court's analysis or final decision on the applications.

Headnote

A) Civil Procedure – Rejection of Plaint – Order VII Rule 11 – Non-compliance with Section 12-A of Commercial Courts Act, 2015 – When considering an application for rejection of plaint, the court must do a meaningful reading of the plaint; if it discloses no cause of action or is barred by law, rejection is mandatory – The absence of pre-litigation mediation under Section 12-A without valid urgency may render the plaint liable for rejection (Paras 7-8).

B) Commercial Law – Pre-Litigation Mediation – Section 12-A, Commercial Courts Act, 2015 – The test for whether urgent interim relief justifies bypassing Section 12-A is not whether the prayer is eventually granted, but whether, on examination of the nature of the suit and cause of action, the prayer for urgent interim relief is contemplable from the plaintiff’s standpoint and not a mere camouflage – The plaintiff’s subsequent conduct in pursuing interim relief is also a material criterion (Paras 8-9).

C) Specific Relief – Bar Under Section 41, Specific Relief Act, 1963 – The plaint is assailed on the ground that it is barred under Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act, though no analysis or finding is recorded in the available excerpts (Para 11).

D) SARFAESI – Bar of Civil Court Jurisdiction – Section 34, SARFAESI Act, 2002 – The plaint is liable to be rejected if it is barred by Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act, which restricts civil court jurisdiction over matters covered by the Act (Paras 1, 11).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the plaint is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for non-compliance with Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, and whether the suit is barred under Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Law Points

  • mandatory pre-litigation mediation under Section 12-A
  • test for urgent interim relief
  • bar under Section 41 Specific Relief Act
  • bar under Section 34 SARFAESI Act
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2026 LawText (BOM) (05) 45

Interim Application No. 4596 of 2025, Interim Application (L) No. 22220 of 2025, Interim Application No. 7764 of 2025 in Commercial Suit No. 126 of 2025

2026-04-04

Gauri Godse, J.

IIFL Finance Ltd., IIFL Home Finance Ltd., Vensco Developers LLP

Paramvir Developers Pvt. Ltd., Paramvir Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., K Mordani Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Koel Developers Pvt. Ltd., Kumar Mordani, K Mordani Realty, Paramvir Builders LLP, Gayatri Mordani, Mahek Mordani, Kishore Mordani, Kanayalal Mordani, K Mordani Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., MNK Builders LLP, Reshma Mordani

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Commercial suit for specific performance of a Framework Agreement, declaration of no dues, and consequential injunctions; interim applications by defendants for rejection of plaint.

Remedy Sought

Defendants (applicants) seek rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on grounds of non-compliance with Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, and bars under Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act.

Filing Reason

Plaintiffs filed suit without pre-litigation mediation, alleging imminent threat of defendants taking precipitative steps against secured assets and misusing development rights.

Issues

Whether the plaint is liable to be rejected for non-compliance with the mandatory requirement of Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015? Whether the suit is barred under Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963? Whether the suit is barred under Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002?

Submissions/Arguments

The plaint does not disclose a cause of action because the Framework Agreement stood automatically terminated on 31 December 2024 due to the plaintiffs’ admitted non-performance. The plaintiffs failed to comply with Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act; the test for urgent interim relief to bypass mediation is whether the prayer is genuinely contemplable, not whether it is ultimately granted. The plaintiffs’ claim of urgency was a camouflage. The suit is barred under Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act and Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act, as the disputes arise from loan agreements and security enforcement.

Judgment Excerpts

These applications are filed by the Defendants for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (“CPC”), on the grounds of non-compliance with Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (“said Act”), bar under Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and Section 34 of the The Securitisation And Reconstruction Of Financial Assets and Enforcement Of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). The suit is filed for specific performance of the Framework Agreement dated 20th December 2024 by discharging the plaintiffs and the entire Mordani Group from all liabilities in relation to the loan facilities availed from defendant nos. 1 and 2... Admittedly, Mordani Group did not comply with its obligations under the Framework Agreement; hence, the Framework Agreement stood terminated. It is well-settled that while examining an objection under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, a meaningful, not a formal, reading of the plaint must be done...

Procedural History

The plaintiffs filed Commercial Suit No. 126 of 2025 for specific performance of a Framework Agreement without first complying with pre-litigation mediation under Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The defendants filed Interim Application Nos. 4596, 22220, and 7764 of 2025 seeking rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The court heard the applications and reserved judgment on 23 December 2025, pronouncing the order on 4 April 2026.

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order VII Rule 11
  • Commercial Courts Act, 2015: Section 12-A
  • Specific Relief Act, 1963: Section 41
  • Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002: Section 34
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Union of India's Appeal in Service Law Dispute Over Nursing Allowance. Classification of posts based on educational qualifications justifies different pay scales, as Nursing Assistants lack qualifications and experience required ...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Union of India's Petition Challenging Arbitral Award in Railway Lease Dispute. Arbitrator's finding of breach of contract and award of damages upheld as not perverse under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 19...