Case Title: Renewflex Recycling v. Facilitation Centre Rohini Courts & Ors.
Date of Order: 19 February 2025
Case No.: W.P.(C) 2039/2025
Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:1020-DB
Court: High Court of Delhi
Judges: Chief Justice Devender Kumar Upadhyay & Justice Tushar Rao Gedela
Facts:
The petitioner, Renewflex Recycling, filed a writ petition challenging the rejection of its commercial suit by the Commercial Court Registry. The dispute arose from an unpaid amount of ₹5,57,550 (including GST) for goods supplied to Respondent No. 2, DP Polymers. The petitioner sent a legal notice demanding payment and later attempted to initiate mediation by sending a request through its advocate. Since Respondent No. 2 failed to respond, the petitioner contended that this non-response should be considered as fulfilling the requirements of pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. However, the Registry rejected the plaint for lack of a Non-Starter Report or Certificate of Non-Settlement from the mediation authority.
Aggrieved, the petitioner initially filed W.P.(C) 1473/2025, which was withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh petition. In the present petition, the petitioner sought to challenge the procedural rigidity in applying Section 12A and requested that its independent mediation attempt be deemed sufficient compliance.
Issues:
Whether a party’s unilateral attempt at mediation, followed by the non-response of the other party, can be considered as compliance with the mandatory pre-institution mediation requirement under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
Reasoning and Analysis of the Judgment:
The Court rejected the petitioner’s argument, holding that statutory pre-institution mediation must be conducted within the framework prescribed by Section 12A. It ruled that a party cannot substitute or supplement this process by sending a private mediation request through an advocate. The Court cited Patil Automation (P) Ltd. v. Rakheja Engineers (P) Ltd., (2022) 10 SCC 1, which upheld the constitutional validity of Section 12A, affirming that compliance with the prescribed mediation process is mandatory before filing a commercial suit unless urgent interim relief is sought.
The Court further emphasized that statutory provisions must be followed as written and cannot be altered through judicial interpretation unless exceptional circumstances exist. The principle that "if a statute prescribes a particular mode of implementation, it must be followed in that manner or not at all" was reaffirmed through precedents such as Taylor v. Taylor (1875) and State of Uttar Pradesh v. Singhara Singh (1964).
Additionally, the Court clarified that the legislative intent behind Section 12A is to ensure that mediation is conducted within a controlled institutional framework. The requirement for a Non-Starter Report or a Certificate of Non-Settlement ensures procedural integrity and prevents unnecessary litigation. The petitioner’s argument that a legal notice requesting mediation should be deemed sufficient was deemed inconsistent with the law’s purpose and structure.
Decision:
The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner’s unilateral mediation request could not replace the formal process under Section 12A. The requirement of a Non-Starter Report or Certificate of Non-Settlement is essential and cannot be bypassed by private negotiations. No costs were imposed.
