JK Engineering Private Limited Vs ANE Industries Private Limited

Summary of the Judgment

This commercial legal dispute arose between a plaintiff seeking a money recovery and other reliefs against a defendant company based on a commercial agreement and past court orders. The plaintiff filed the present commercial suit after previous rounds of litigation, asking the court for permission to file without going through mandatory pre-litigation mediation because it claimed there was an urgent need to protect its rights against asset alienation. The plaintiff also sought permission to file the suit in the High Court at Calcutta because a part of the negotiations allegedly took place within its territorial boundary. The defendant challenged both permissions, arguing that the urgency was fake just to bypass mandatory mediation, and that the Kolkata court was an extremely inconvenient location since major offices, banking, and actual contract work happened outside Kolkata, while a related suit was already pending in Punjab. The court analyzed the statutory requirement for mediation and held that whether an urgent relief is contemplated must be seen from the viewpoint of the plaintiff at the time of filing, finding that the plaintiff had enough reason to skip mediation. However, on the issue of territorial convenience, the court agreed with the defendant, holding that making the defendant defend the suit in Kolkata would cause immense hardship when the balance of convenience clearly favored Punjab. Consequently, the court revoked the territorial permission granted to the plaintiff, ordered the return of the suit papers for presentation before the proper commercial court in Punjab, and clarified that since the defendant had already lost its legal right to file a written statement due to procedural delays, the suit would continue before the Punjab court as an undefended suit.

JK Engineering Private Limited Vs ANE Industries Private Limited, July 28 2026, IA NO. GA-COM/3/2025 In CS-COM/834/2024, Neutral Citation: N/A, High Court at Calcutta, Justice Aniruddha Roy

[Disclaimer: Donot treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain subjective errors.] Tags: Commercial Courts Act 2015, Section 12A, Pre-Institution Mediation, Clause 12 Letters Patent, Forum Conveniens, Revocation of Leave, Undefended Suit

Analytical Legal Article on the Judgment

Introduction:

The interplay between mandatory statutory pre-requisites under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and discretionary territorial doctrines such as forum conveniens under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, 1865 forms a critical boundary in Indian commercial litigation. While the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 mandates pre-institution mediation to lessen judicial delays, Chartered High Courts exercising ordinary original civil jurisdiction must continuously ensure that territorial privileges under Letters Patent are not weaponized to subject defendants to overwhelming operational inconvenience.

The judgment of the High Court at Calcutta in JK Engineering Private Limited v. ANE Industries Private Limited provides a sharp and nuanced exposition on two major interlocutory threshold issues: first, whether a commercial suit can bypass pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 based on a subjective apprehension of urgency; and second, whether leave granted under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, 1865 ought to be revoked under the doctrine of forum conveniens when the center of gravity of the dispute lies elsewhere.

Factual and Procedural Background:

The roots of the dispute lie in a commercial transaction and Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) executed between the parties on March 26, 2013. The procedural journey of the litigation is marked by multiple stages:

1. First Suit (CS No. 163 of 2016): The plaintiff initially filed a non-commercial suit on August 18, 2016, before the regular civil division.
2. Second Suit (CS No. 213 of 2016): On August 19, 2016, the plaintiff withdrew the first suit and filed a second suit on the self-same cause of action. In this suit, the plaintiff secured a judgment upon admission on February 07, 2019.
3. Appellate Division Bench Order (December 03, 2024): The defendant filed a demurrer application which was carried in appeal. On December 03, 2024, the Hon'ble Division Bench disposed of the appeal by holding that the suit ought to have been filed in the Commercial Division. The Bench permitted the plaintiff to withdraw the suit and institute a fresh commercial suit within four weeks, specifying that failure to file within four weeks would disentitle the plaintiff to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
4. Third Suit / Present Suit (CS-COM/834/2024): On December 24, 2024, the plaintiff filed the present suit seeking leave under Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, 1865, and dispensation of pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
5. Initial Ex-Parte Orders (January 06, 2025): A Coordinate Bench granted dispensation from pre-litigation mediation and leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent.
6. Defendant’s Interlocutory Application (IA No. GA-COM/3/2025): Filed on August 11, 2025, the defendant prayed for revocation of leave under Section 12A, revocation of leave under Clause 12, and dismissal/rejection of the suit.
7. Forfeiture of Written Statement: Significantly, the defendant failed to file its written statement within the maximum statutory outer limit of 120 days prescribed under Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, thereby forfeiting its right to file a written statement by operation of law.

Dispute Before the Court:

The primary legal and factual questions presented before the Court for determination were:

1. Validity of Dispensation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015: Whether the plaintiff genuine contemplated an "urgent interim relief" at the time of instituting the commercial suit, or whether the plea of urgency was an unfounded excuse to bypass statutory mediation.
2. Revocation of Leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, 1865: Whether the ex-parte leave granted under Clause 12 should be revoked based on the doctrine of forum conveniens and balance of convenience, given that the registered offices, bankers, execution of works, and parallel litigation were situated outside Kolkata.

Competing Contentions of the Parties:

• Defendant's Stand: The defendant argued that no actual application for urgent interim relief was pressed by the plaintiff after filing. The dispute had been lingering since 2016, proving there was no real emergency. On jurisdiction, the defendant established that its registered office was in Punjab, the plaintiff’s registered office was in Sikkim, payments came from Punjab, and execution of work was in Assam. Furthermore, a cross-suit filed by the defendant was already pending in Punjab. Thus, holding the trial in Kolkata was highly inconvenient and prejudiced the defendant.
• Plaintiff's Stand: The plaintiff argued that urgency must be assessed from the plaintiff's standpoint at the time of filing. Having previously obtained a judgment upon admission, the plaintiff reasonably apprehended that the defendant might dissipate assets during the time taken by mediation. On territorial jurisdiction, the plaintiff asserted that part of the cause of action (negotiations and execution of MoU) occurred at its corporate office in Kolkata. The plaintiff also claimed that the defendant's plea was barred by res judicata.

Reasoning and Analysis of the Court:

A. Interpretation of Section 12A of Commercial Courts Act, 2015 & Practice Directions

The Court acknowledged that Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 creates a mandatory bar against instituting commercial suits without exhausting pre-institution mediation, unless the suit "contemplates any urgent interim relief".

In analyzing the legal standard for dispensation, the Court surveyed landmark precedents of the Hon’ble Supreme Court:

• Patil Automation Private Limited and Others v. Rakheja Engineering Private Limited [(2022) 10 SCC 1]: Established that Section 12A is mandatory and non-compliance results in rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC.
• Yamini Manohar v. T.K.D. Keerthi [(2024) 5 SCC 815]: Clarified that "contemplation of urgent interim relief" must be evaluated holistically from the standpoint of the plaintiff, and should not be a mere disguise to wriggle out of Section 12A.
• Dhanbad Fuels Private Limited v. Union of India and Another [(2025) 9 SCC 424]: Held that the test is not whether urgent interim relief is ultimately granted, but whether on an examination of the nature, subject-matter, and cause of action, the prayer for urgent interim relief could be said to be contemplable from the plaintiff's standpoint. No separate formal application is necessary; plaint averments and oral submissions are sufficient.
• Novenco Building and Industry A/S v. Xero Energy Engineering Solutions Private Limited [2025 SCC OnLine SC 2278]: Summarized the distilled legal test: courts look at whether urgent interim intervention is genuinely contemplated from the plaintiff's viewpoint, without evaluating the ultimate merits of the interim relief.

Applying these principles alongside Rule 6 and Rule 8 of the High Court at Calcutta Commercial Court Practice Directions, 2021, the Court held that the Coordinate Bench in its order dated January 06, 2025 had taken a plausible and possible view. Considering the procedural background—where the plaintiff had previously secured a judgment on admission and faced strict court-mandated deadlines—the apprehension of asset dissipation was reasonable from the plaintiff's standpoint. Hence, dispensation under Section 12A was upheld.

B. Forum Conveniens and Revocation of Leave under Clause 12 of Letters Patent

On the second issue, the Court examined whether ex-parte leave granted under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, 1865 should be revoked.

The Court cited the foundational principles from Madanlal Jalan v. Madanlal & Ors. [AIR 1949 Cal 495], which established that:

1. Granting leave under Clause 12 ex-parte is an administrative/judicial practice based solely on plaint averments.
2. When the defendant enters an appearance and seeks revocation, the court must apply an unfettered judicial mind to reconsider the balance of convenience as if considering the matter afresh.
3. If only a small part of the cause of action arose within jurisdiction and the bulk of witnesses/documents reside outside, the court may apply the doctrine of forum conveniens to revoke leave.

The Court further relied on Mighty Metals Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. Rajasthan Financial Corporation [2011 SCC OnLine Cal 2113], Ultra Engineering v. Spintex Industry [AIR 1980 Cal 159], and Assam Company Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh [(2010) 3 CHN 26] to emphasize that where overwhelming inconvenience to the defendant is evident, leave ought to be revoked.

Assessment of Facts:

• The plaintiff's registered office is in Sikkim. Under company law, statutory registers and records are mandated to be kept at its registered office.
• The defendant’s registered office and banking channels are located in Punjab.
• The underlying works under the MoU were executed in Assam.
• The defendant had already instituted a suit against the plaintiff arising out of the same transaction before a jurisdictional court in Punjab.

The Court held that forcing the defendant—who has no place of business in West Bengal—to defend the suit in Kolkata would cause immense hardship. In contrast, litigating in Punjab would cause minimal additional inconvenience to the plaintiff, as it would need to transport records from Sikkim regardless of whether the forum was Kolkata or Punjab.

Addressing the defendant's procedural status, the Court distinguished Isha Distribution House Pvt. Ltd. v. Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd. [(2019) 12 SCC 205] and ruled that an application for revocation on forum conveniens can be entertained independently, even when the defendant has lost its right to file a written statement.

Final Decision of the Court:

The High Court disposed of the interlocutory application (IA NO. GA-COM/3/2025 in CS-COM/834/2024) with the following directions:

1. Section 12A Challenge Rejected: The plea to reject the plaint for non-compliance with pre-institution mediation was dismissed. The dispensation granted on January 06, 2025 was affirmed.
2. Clause 12 Leave Revoked: Leave granted under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, 1865 was revoked on the ground of forum conveniens.
3. Return of Plaint: The plaint was ordered to be returned to the plaintiff along with court fees.
4. Transfer to Competent Court as Undefended Suit: The plaintiff was granted liberty to present the plaint before the competent jurisdictional Commercial Court in Punjab where the defendant's suit is pending. Crucially, the Court directed that the suit shall proceed from its present stage as an undefended suit, because the defendant’s statutory forfeiture of its right to file a written statement remains binding.
5. Connected applications (IA NO. GA-COM/4/2025 and GA-COM/5/2026) were disposed of with liberty to re-file identical interim prayers before the Punjab Commercial Court.

Point of Law Settled:

1. Subjective Test for Urgency under Section 12A: "Contemplation of urgent interim relief" under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 is a subjective test evaluated strictly from the plaintiff's standpoint at the time of filing. Subsequent failure or delay in pressing for interim relief does not automatically invalidate the initial dispensation or justify rejection of the plaint.
2. Primacy of Forum Conveniens in Letters Patent Jurisdiction: Ex-parte leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, 1865 is conditional. Even if a technical part of the cause of action arose within jurisdiction, the Court will revoke leave if the balance of convenience overwhelmingly favors another competent jurisdiction.
3. Persistence of Procedural Default Upon Return of Plaint: The return of a plaint for re-presentation before a convenient forum does not reset procedural defaults. A defendant who has forfeited its right to file a written statement under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 in the original court must face the suit as an undefended suit in the transferee court.

JK Engineering Private Limited Vs ANE Industries Private Limited, July 28 2026, IA NO. GA-COM/3/2025 In CS-COM/834/2024, Neutral Citation: N/A, High Court at Calcutta, Justice Aniruddha Roy

JK Engineering Private Limited Vs ANE Industries Private Limited

JK Engineering Private Limited Vs ANE Industries Private Limited

Date of Judgment: 28.07.2026

Case No.: IA NO. GA-COM/3/2025 In CS-COM/834/2024

Neutral Citation : Not Available

In The High Court at Calcutta (Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction - Commercial Division)

Name of Hon'ble Judge: Hon'ble Justice Aniruddha Roy

### Factual and Procedural Background

The plaintiff originally instituted a non-commercial suit in 2016, followed by a second suit on the same cause of action, which was later permitted to be withdrawn by the Division Bench on 03.12.2024 with liberty to file a fresh commercial suit within four weeks. The plaintiff then filed the present commercial suit on 24.12.2024, seeking dispensation of pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, 1865, both of which were granted ex-parte by a Coordinate Bench on 06.01.2025. The defendant filed an application seeking revocation of both the Section 12A dispensation and the Clause 12 Letters Patent leave, contending that no urgent interim relief was contemplated and that Calcutta was an inconvenient forum given that the contract was executed in Punjab, work was executed in Assam, and the parties were registered in Sikkim and Punjab.

### Dispute before Court

Whether the court should revoke the dispensation granted to the plaintiff from exhausting mandatory pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, and whether the leave granted under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, 1865 ought to be revoked on the ground of forum conveniens.

### Reasoning of Judge

The Court held that dispensation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 was validly granted because the plaintiff genuinely contemplated urgent interim relief from its own standpoint, supported by pleadings and oral submissions regarding the apprehension that the defendant might alienate assets. However, regarding Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, the Court held that even if a minuscule part of the cause of action arose within its jurisdiction, the balance of convenience heavily favored the defendant, as no operations or registered offices were in West Bengal, and a related suit was already pending in Punjab.

### Decision

The application was allowed in part. The prayer to recall the Section 12A dispensation was rejected, but the leave granted under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, 1865 was revoked on the principle of forum conveniens, and the plaint was ordered to be returned to the plaintiff to be presented before the competent jurisdictional commercial court in Punjab.

### One Important legal principle held in the case

Even if a part of the cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of a Chartered High Court, the leave granted under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, 1865 can be revoked if the balance of convenience overwhelmingly favors the defendant under the doctrine of forum conveniens.

[Disclaimer: Readers are advised not to treat this as a substitute for legal advice as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation ]

# Analytical Legal Article

Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act 2015 & Urgent Relief

Introduction:

Commercial litigation in India demands a delicate balance between procedural efficiency, statutory compliance, and equitable access to an appropriate legal forum. The interplay between mandatory pre-institution mediation under commercial law and the discretionary territorial jurisdiction exercised by Chartered High Courts often gives rise to complex procedural battles. A prominent instance of such litigation involves the challenge raised by a defendant seeking the dismissal or return of a commercial suit on two distinct procedural grounds: the failure to undergo mandatory pre-litigation mediation and the improper invocation of territorial jurisdiction under historic letters patent provisions. The judgment in question offers a comprehensive analysis of how courts evaluate the stand-point of a plaintiff seeking urgent interim relief against the hardships faced by a defendant forced to litigate in a forum that lacks substantial connection with the underlying dispute.

Factual and Procedural Background:

The history of the dispute traces back to 18.08.2016, when the plaintiff initially instituted a civil suit before the regular non-commercial division of the High Court. On the very next day, 19.08.2016, the plaintiff withdrew the initial suit and filed a second suit on the self-same cause of action between identical parties seeking identical reliefs. In this second action, the plaintiff secured a judgment upon admission on 07.02.2019. However, the defendant filed a demurrer application which eventually escalated to the appellate stage. On 03.12.2024, the Division Bench disposed of the appeal by setting aside the judgment upon admission, observing that the dispute was commercial in nature and ought not to have proceeded before the regular non-commercial division. The Division Bench permitted the plaintiff to withdraw the second suit with liberty to institute a fresh commercial suit within four weeks, specifying that failure to do so within the stipulated timeframe would deprive the plaintiff of the benefit of exclusion of time under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Pursuant to the directions of the Division Bench, the plaintiff presented a fresh commercial suit on 24.12.2024. Along with the suit, the plaintiff sought leave under Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, 1865 for invoking territorial jurisdiction, and dispensation with the requirement of mandatory pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. On 06.01.2025, a Coordinate Bench granted ex-parte leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent and dispensed with the pre-institution mediation requirement, thereby admitting the suit. Subsequently, on 11.08.2025, the defendant filed an interlocutory application seeking revocation of the leave granted under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, revocation of the dispensation granted under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, and dismissal of the suit.

The commercial contract in dispute was a memorandum of understanding dated 26.03.2013. The registered office of the plaintiff was located in Gangtok, Sikkim, while the registered office of the defendant was situated in Chandigarh Road, Punjab. The execution of the contracted works was to take place entirely in Assam, and the financial banking transfers associated with the contract were routed through a bank in Nawanshahr, Punjab. The plaintiff asserted jurisdiction in Calcutta on the premise that negotiations occurred at its corporate office situated within local limits and that one witness to the agreement had an address in Kolkata. Meanwhile, the defendant had already instituted a civil suit arising out of the same contractual transaction against the plaintiff, which remained pending before the jurisdictional court in Punjab.

Dispute Before the Court

The core legal questions requiring adjudication centered on whether the plaintiff had legitimately bypassed the statutory mandate of pre-institution mediation and whether the High Court ought to retain territorial jurisdiction over the suit.

The defendant argued that Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 creates an absolute statutory bar against instituting a commercial suit without exhausting pre-litigation mediation unless the suit genuinely contemplates urgent interim relief. The defendant contended that the suit was primarily a money claim where no urgent interim relief had been formally applied for or granted since 2016. The defendant asserted that the plaintiff used the plea of urgency as a mere camouflage and guise to bypass the mandatory statutory process. On the issue of jurisdiction, the defendant urged that the contract was executed in Punjab, the works were performed in Assam, payments originated from Punjab, and both parties had registered offices outside West Bengal. Relying on the doctrine of forum conveniens, the defendant maintained that compelling it to defend the action in Calcutta caused severe hardship, especially when a related proceeding was pending in Punjab.

Conversely, the plaintiff contended that the contemplation of urgency must be assessed holistically from the standpoint of the plaintiff at the time of filing. The plaintiff highlighted that having previously obtained a judgment upon admission that was later set aside on technical jurisdictional grounds, it possessed a legitimate apprehension that the defendant would dissipate or alienate assets to defeat the claim if forced into mediation. Furthermore, the plaintiff argued that the strict four-week timeline imposed by the Division Bench on 03.12.2024 necessitated immediate filing without waiting for mediation. Regarding territorial jurisdiction, the plaintiff maintained that part of the cause of action arose within the local limits where contractual negotiations occurred, and that averments in the plaint must be accepted as true at the initial stage without forcing a revocation of leave.

Reasoning and Analysis of the Court

In analyzing the first issue regarding pre-institution mediation, the Court examined the statutory mandate under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 alongside Rule 8 of the High Court Commercial Court Practice Directions, 2021. The Court observed that Section 12A imposes a mandatory requirement that non-compliance with ordinarily renders a plaint institutionally defective, leading to rejection under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. However, an explicit statutory exception exists where a suit contemplates urgent interim relief.

The Court referred to authoritative precedents of the Supreme Court of India to establish the precise legal standard applicable to Section 12A. In Patil Automation Private Limited and Others vs. Rakheja Engineering Private Limited [(2022) 10 SCC 1], the Supreme Court established the mandatory nature of pre-institution mediation. This standard was further refined in Yamini Manohar vs. T.K.D. Keerthi [(2024) 5 SCC 815] and Dhanbad Fuels Private Limited vs. Union of India and Another [(2025) 9 SCC 424], where the Apex Court clarified that the test under Section 12A is not whether an urgent interim relief is ultimately granted on merits, but whether, upon a holistic examination of the plaint, documents, and oral submissions, a prayer for urgent interim relief was genuinely contemplable from the standpoint of the plaintiff.

This principle was reaffirmed in Novenco Building and Industry A/S vs. Xero Energy Engineering Solutions Private Limited [2025 SCC OnLine SC 2278], which summarized that courts must examine if there exists a plausible urgency or risk of losing rights or assets, rather than assessing the final merits of the interim relief. Applying these principles, the Court held that the apprehension of asset alienation expressed by the plaintiff—given the prior litigation history where a judgment upon admission had been recorded—constituted a plausible and reasonable basis for contemplating urgent interim relief. Consequently, the ex-parte order dispensing with pre-institution mediation was affirmed as a valid exercise of judicial discretion.

Turning to the second issue regarding Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, 1865, the Court undertook a detailed evaluation of discretionary territorial jurisdiction. Under Clause 12, where only a part of the cause of action arises within the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of the High Court, the court possesses discretion to grant, refuse, or subsequently revoke leave to sue. The Court reviewed the landmark decision in Madanlal Jalan vs. Madanlal & Ors. [AIR 1949 Cal 495], which formulated the foundational principles governing revocation of leave under Clause 12. The principles establish that the court must consider the balance of convenience of both parties and may apply the doctrine of forum conveniens to revoke leave if the balance is overwhelmingly in favor of the defendant, even in the absence of bad faith by the plaintiff.

The Court also considered Ultra Engineering vs. Spintex Industry [AIR 1980 Cal 159] and Mighty Metals Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. vs. Rajasthan Financial Corporation [2011 SCC OnLine Cal 2113], which emphasized that genuine hardship and lack of territorial nexus justify revoking leave. Upon scrutinizing the material on record, the Court observed that the primary elements of the transaction occurred far outside Calcutta: the registered office of the plaintiff was in Sikkim, the registered office of the defendant was in Punjab, the memorandum of understanding was executed in Punjab, the works were executed in Assam, and payments were processed in Punjab.

Furthermore, the defendant had already instituted a civil suit in Punjab arising from the same transaction. The Court noted that under company law mandates, corporate records are maintained at registered offices. While the plaintiff would have to transport records from Sikkim regardless of whether the trial occurred in Calcutta or Punjab, the defendant having no place of business in West Bengal would suffer extreme hardship in transporting witnesses and records from Punjab to Calcutta. Balancing the convenience of both sides, the Court held that Calcutta was not the natural or convenient forum, and that trying the suit in Punjab alongside or before the jurisdictional court would serve the ends of justice.

Final Decision of the Court

The Court disposed of the interlocutory application by granting partial relief to the applicant defendant. The Court refused to recall or revoke the order granting dispensation from pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, holding that the dispensation was lawfully granted based on the plaintiff's contemplable urgency.

However, the Court allowed the application regarding territorial jurisdiction and revoked the leave previously granted under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, 1865 on the ground of forum conveniens. The Court directed that the plaint be returned to the plaintiff along with the original court fees paid, upon retaining a certified photostat copy of the plaint on record. The plaintiff was granted liberty to present the plaint before the competent jurisdictional commercial court in Punjab where the defendant's suit was pending. The Court noted that because the defendant had forfeited its right to file a written statement by operation of law under Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, the suit would proceed from its present stage before the transferee commercial court as an undefended suit. Connected interlocutory applications were disposed of, and interim orders were vacated with liberty to re-apply before the appropriate court in Punjab.

Point of Law Settled

This judgment reaffirms and clarifies two crucial procedural standards in commercial litigation:First, in evaluating compliance with Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, the test for dispensing with pre-institution mediation is subjective-objective, measured strictly from the standpoint of the plaintiff at the time of filing. The Court is not required to adjudicate whether interim relief will be granted on merits, but whether the plaintiff had a plausible and non-illusory reason to contemplate urgent intervention to protect its rights or assets.Second, the judgment reaffirms that ex-parte leave granted under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, 1865 is subject to judicial review under the doctrine of forum conveniens. Even if a minuscule or formal part of the cause of action is shown to arise within the territorial limits of a Chartered High Court, the court retains inherent discretion to revoke leave if the balance of convenience heavily favors the defendant and litigating in that forum imposes undue hardship without a substantial nexus to the core transaction.

Title of the Case: JK Engineering Private Limited Vs ANE Industries Private Limited

Date of Judgment: 28.07.2026

Case Number: IA NO. GA-COM/3/2025 In CS-COM/834/2024

Name of Court: In The High Court at Calcutta (Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction - Commercial Division)

Name of Hon'ble Judge: Hon'ble Justice Aniruddha Roy

Written By:Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi

Disclaimer: Readers are advised not to treat this as a substitute for legal advice as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation .

### Headnote of the Judgment:

In JK Engineering Private Limited Vs ANE Industries Private Limited (IA NO. GA-COM/3/2025 In CS-COM/834/2024), the High Court at Calcutta considered an application to recall Section 12A Commercial Courts Act, 2015 pre-litigation mediation dispensation and revoke Clause 12 Letters Patent, 1865 leave. The Court affirmed the Section 12A dispensation, holding that urgency must be assessed holistically from the plaintiff's standpoint. However, the Court revoked Clause 12 leave applying the doctrine of forum conveniens, as the contract was executed in Punjab, works were performed in Assam, and both corporate offices were outside West Bengal. The plaint was ordered to be returned for presentation before the jurisdictional Commercial Court in Punjab to proceed as an undefended suit.

### Suggested SEO Tags:

Commercial Courts Act 2015, Section 12A Commercial Courts Act, Pre Institution Mediation, Clause 12 Letters Patent 1865, Revocation of Leave, Forum Conveniens, Calcutta High Court Judgment, Commercial Division High Court, Urgency in Commercial Suits, Rejection of Plaint, Return of Plaint, Order VII Rule 11 CPC, Balance of Convenience, Territorial Jurisdiction Commercial Suit, Undefended Commercial Suit, Limitation Act Section 14, Judgment upon Admission, Commercial Dispute Litigation, Pre-litigation Mediation Exemption, Interim Relief Commercial Suit, Civil Procedure Code Amendment, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, High Court Practice Directions 2021, AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman, IPAdjutor.

### Suggested SEO Titles:

 1. Section 12A Commercial Courts Act & Forum Conveniens: Calcutta High Court Analysis

 2. Revocation of Clause 12 Leave under Letters Patent: Calcutta High Court Ruling

 3. Understanding Pre-Institution Mediation Exemption in Commercial Disputes

 4. Forum Conveniens in Commercial Litigation: JK Engineering v. ANE Industries

 5. When Can Clause 12 Letters Patent Leave Be Revoked in Commercial Suits?

 6. Subjective Test of Urgency under Section 12A Commercial Courts Act Explained

 7. Balance of Convenience vs Territorial Jurisdiction in Commercial Disputes

 8. Calcutta High Court Disposes Challenge to Section 12A Mediation & Clause 12 Leave

 9. Return of Plaint and Forum Conveniens under Commercial Courts Act 2015

 10. Legal Analysis: Pre-Litigation Mediation & Letters Patent Jurisdiction in India