(BY SRI. V B SHIVA KUMAR, ADVOCATE) v. (R2 & R3 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

SRI G K PRAKASH S/O LATE G R KRISHNAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, REPRESENTED BY KARTHA G K PRAKASH (HUF) R/AT NO.6-104, 10TH MAIN, 3RD BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 011 (BY SRI. V B SHIVA KUMAR, ADVOCATE) …PETITIONER AND: MADHUSHREE H Location: High Court of Karnataka

M/S ELEGANCE COMPONENTS NO.961, GROUND FLOOR, I CROSS, NEAR IDEAL HOME CLUB, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 098 REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNERS a) MAMATHA R W/O VINAY G, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, b) VINAY G S/O GANGADHARA K B, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, M/S ELEGANCE COMPONENTS, KRISH TOWER, NO.9, 2ND FLOOR, - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:29309 WP No. 3258 of 2021 HC-KAR SRINIVASAPURA CROSS, BEML LAYOUT, CHANNASANDRA VILLAGE, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 098

SMT. MAMATHA R W/O VINAY G, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, PARTNER M/S ELEGANCE COMPONENTS, NO.961, GROUND FLOOR, I CROSS, NEAR IDEAL HOME CLUB, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 098 AND ALSO AT NO.318, DECCAN ARCADE-2, APARTMENT 3RD FLOOR, 3RD MAIN, BEML LAYOUT, 5TH STAGE, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 098

VINAY G S/O GANGADHARA K B, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, PARTNER M/S ELEGANCE COMPONENTS, NO.961, GROUND FLOOR, I CROSS, NEAR IDEAL HOME CLUB, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 098 AND ALSO AT NO.318, DECCAN ARCADE-2, APARTMENT 3RD FLOOR, 3RD MAIN, BEML LAYOUT, 5TH STAGE, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 098 (R2 & R3 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) …RESPONDENTS - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:29309 WP No. 3258 of 2021 HC-KAR THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 21.12.2020 PASSED BY THE COMMERCIAL COURTS LXXXIII ADDITIONAL COMMERCIAL COURT & SESSIONS JUDGE, AT BENGALURU IN COM.O.S.NO.400/2020 PENDING CONSIDERATION AND DISPOSAL OF THE ABOVE PETITION AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI ORAL ORDER This petition is filed seeking following reliefs: (a) for a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or directions quashing the order dated 21.12.2020 passed by the (Commercial Courts) LXXXIII Additional City Civil Session Judge, at Bengaluru in COM.O.S.No.400/2020 as per Annexure-'A'. (b) Order directing the LXXXIII Additional City Civil Session Judge in COM.O.S.No.400/2020 to admit and consider the Interlocutory Application. (c) Cost of the Petition.

2. Sri. V.B. Shivakumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits the petitioner has Com.O.S.No.400/2020, which came to be returned on the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:29309 WP No. 3258 of 2021 HC-KAR ground that the petitioner/plaintiff has not exhausted the remedy of pre-institution mediation. However, the Commercial Court has ignored the mandate of Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, (for short 'Act'). As the petitioner had filed an application seeking for attachment of Immovable properties before judgment.

3. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record.

The petitioner filed Com.O.S.No.400/2020 seeking for relief of recovery of money and other related reliefs. Along with the plaint, the petitioner filed an application under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking interim relief of attachment of immovable properties. When things stood thus, the Commercial Court has committed in returning the plaint by directing the petitioner/plaintiff to exhaust the remedy of pre-institution mediation. The mandate of Section 12A of the Act, specifies that a suit which does not contemplate any urgent interim relief under this Act, shall not be instituted unless the plaintiff exhausts the remedy of pre- - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:29309 WP No. 3258 of 2021 HC-KAR institution mediation. It appears from the record that the respondents have not been served.

A perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the application for waiving the process to be adopted under Section 12(A) of the Commercial Courts Act reflects that some mediation was conducted between the parties and that mediation did not conclude in any settlement. Moreover, allegations were made that the defendants had been making attempts to remove the stock in trade and had made arrangements to wind-up the business and move away from Bengaluru City in order to defeat the legitimate claim of the applicant. I find that there is no consideration of the said allegations.