1. Mandatory Nature of Pre-Institution Mediation

🔹 Patil Automation Pvt. Ltd. v. Rakheja Engineers Pvt. Ltd. (2022)

The Supreme Court held that Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 is mandatory.

• No commercial suit (not seeking urgent interim relief) can be filed without pre-institution mediation.
• If not complied with, the plaint is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
• The Court clarified that mediation is not optional but a statutory pre-condition.

👉 This case is the leading authority on mediation requirement disputes in commercial litigation.

🔹 Dhanbad Fuels Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (2025)

The Supreme Court reaffirmed that Section 12A is mandatory, not directory.

• Courts must ensure compliance strictly.
• However, where urgent interim relief is genuinely required, mediation can be bypassed.

👉 This case strengthened the strict enforcement approach in mediation requirement disputes.

2. Attempt to Bypass Mediation by Pleading Urgency

🔹 Yamini Manohar v. T.K.D. Keerthi (2023)

The Supreme Court clarified:

• Parties cannot artificially plead urgency just to avoid mediation.
• Courts will examine whether urgency is genuine or manufactured.
• If urgency is not real, plaint can be rejected for non-compliance with Section 12A.

👉 This case prevents abuse of the “urgent relief exception”.

3. Judicial Power to Refer Matters to Mediation

🔹 Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Cherian Varkey Construction Co. (P) Ltd. (2010)

A landmark judgment on Section 89 CPC.

• Courts have the power to refer disputes to ADR including mediation.
• Consent of parties is not always required for court-referred mediation.
• However, arbitration and conciliation generally require consent.

👉 Established that mediation can be judicially directed.

🔹 Salem Advocate Bar Association (II) v. Union of India (2005)

• Supreme Court upheld validity of Section 89 CPC.
• Emphasized mediation as a tool to reduce judicial backlog.
• Directed framing of mediation rules for courts.

👉 Confirmed constitutional validity of mediation referral mechanisms.

4. Mediation as a Tool for Complete Settlement

🔹 B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana (2003)

Although a criminal case, it significantly shaped mediation jurisprudence.

• Courts can quash criminal proceedings if parties settle amicably.
• Emphasized compromise-based dispute resolution in matrimonial disputes.

👉 Reinforces mediation’s role in family and personal disputes.

🔹 K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa (2013)

• Supreme Court directed family courts to encourage mediation in matrimonial disputes.
• Recognized mediation as essential in preserving family relationships.
• Courts must make genuine efforts before passing final orders.

👉 Strengthened mandatory mediation culture in family law.

5. Scope of Settlement Through Mediation

🔹 Sukanya Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. Jayesh H. Pandya (2003)

• Arbitration analogy case but relevant to mediation principles.
• Court held that disputes can be bifurcated and partially resolved.
• Reinforces that ADR mechanisms aim at comprehensive settlement flexibility.

🔹 Haresh Dayaram Thakur v. State of Maharashtra (2000)

• Settlement in ADR must be voluntary and lawful.
• Court cannot force settlement but can facilitate mediation.

👉 Clarifies limits of coercion in mediation proceedings.

6. Scope of Court-Recorded Mediation Settlements

🔹 Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. v. Essar Power Ltd. (2008)

• Settlement agreements reached through ADR can be enforced as court orders.
• Once recorded by court, mediation settlement becomes binding.

👉 Shows legal enforceability of mediated settlements.

🔹 Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Cherian Varkey (2010)

• Mediation settlements, once accepted by court, become executable decrees.
• Courts play a supervisory role in ensuring fairness.

7. Core Principles Emerging from Case Law

From the above jurisprudence, the following principles govern mediation requirement disputes:

✔ Mandatory mediation in commercial disputes

• Especially under Section 12A (Commercial Courts Act)

✔ Genuine urgency is the only exception

• Fake urgency cannot bypass mediation

✔ Courts have wide referral powers

• Under Section 89 CPC and inherent jurisdiction

✔ Mediation settlements are legally binding

• Once recorded by court, they become executable decrees

✔ Mediation promotes access to justice

• Reduces litigation burden and encourages amicable resolution

Conclusion

“Mediation requirement disputes” primarily revolve around whether mediation is a procedural formality or a mandatory legal condition before litigation. Indian Supreme Court jurisprudence clearly shows a strong shift toward:

• Making mediation mandatory in commercial disputes
• Preventing abuse of urgency exceptions
• Strengthening court-referred mediation systems
• Treating mediation as a primary dispute resolution mechanism, not secondary