The Delhi High Court ruled that issuance of legal notice through a lawyer calling for mediation does not meet the requirements of Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, which mandates pre-litigation mediation.

The Court clarified that mediation must be conducted within the statutory framework outlined by the Act, specifically through the authorities set up under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987.

The case involved a petitioner who had supplied goods to the respondent but did not receive payment despite issuing invoices and sending repeated reminders. After sending a legal notice on December 21, 2024, the petitioner requested mediation on December 24, 2024. However, the respondent did not respond. When the petitioner filed a commercial suit in January 2025, the Registry rejected it, citing non-compliance with Section 12A. According to this section, before initiating a commercial suit, the petitioner must obtain either a certificate or a non-starter report from an authorized mediation authority, confirming that mediation has been attempted and no settlement was reached.

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed, “The plain reading (of law) does not suggest any such mode or method of initiating mediation proceedings. Infact, the intent appears to be to initiate the mediation process within the “statutory framework” so as to ensure that the commercial litigation is not protracted or prolonged unnecessarily.”

Advocate Mukul Sharma appeared for the Petitioner and Advocate Sameer Vashisht appeared for the Respondents.

The petitioner argued that the mediation request made through the legal notice, coupled with the respondent’s silence, should be considered sufficient compliance with Section 12A. They further contended that requiring a non-starter report would impose an undue procedural burden, which would delay access to justice and violate Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

However, the bench rejected these arguments, calling them "completely misconceived." The Court clarified “The submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner are completely misconceived and absolute misunderstanding of the provisions of Section 12A of the Act. The act of issuing legal notice by a litigant may be exercised even to call the other party to mediate, if advised, but that can hardly be termed as having any statutory foundation. The said act would be purely in the realm of non statutory regime,”

Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

Cause Title: RenewFlex Recycling v. Facilitation Centre Rohini Courts & Ors., [2025:DHC:1020-DB]

Appearance:

Respondents: Advocates Sameer Vashisht and Harshita Nathrani.

Click here to read/download Judgment


Delhi High CourtChief Justice Devendra Kumar UpadhyayaJustice Tushar Rao Gedela

Suchita Shukla

Assistant Editor

Suchita Shukla is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum, with a strong foundation in legal research and writing, she brings over 4.5 years of experience to the table, having honed her skills in the dynamic field of law. She covers Supreme Court and High Courts. She completed her BA-LLB (Hons.) 5-year course with specialisation in Intellectual Property rights from Galgotias University. Since 2019, apart from having worked at a legal publishing house she has also ventured into legal journalism.