✦ Calcutta High Court · 23 Nov 2023

Judgment · High Court · 2023

ARINDAM MUKHERJEE

Case at a glance

Provisions considered

Judgment

CS 229 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORIDNARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE (COMMERCIAL DIVISION) M/S. INTERNATIONAL FLAVOURS & FRAGRANCES PRIVATE LIMITED VS. M/S. BENGAL ESSENCE STORES & ANR. BEFORE: The Hon’ble JUSTICE ARINDAM MUKHERJEE Date: 23rd November, 2023. Mr. Arani Guha, Mr. Yash Dalmia, Advocates for the plaintiff. The Court : At the stage of presentation of the plaint for instituting a suit for recovery of unpaid price of goods sold and delivered the plaintiff wants dispensation of formalities under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. There is no pleading in the plaint wherefrom the contemplation of the plaintiff for urgent interim relief is apparent which in turn would give the plaintiff a right to seek for dispensation of the formalities under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The only paragraph pointed out is paragraph 28 which on a plain reading does not demonstrate contemplation of any urgent interim relief. In view of the ratio laid down in the recent Supreme Court judgment reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1382 (Yamini Manohar Vs. TKD Keerthi) no dispensation of formalities on the basis of the facts alleged in the plaint can be granted. The plaint is directed to be returned along with the court fees. The plaintiff shall be entitled to use the court fees for any subsequent suit between the same parties that may be filed after complying with the 2 mandatory requirement of pre-institution mediation as enumerated in Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The department is directed to de-register the plaint and remove the number from the records so that the plaint is not shown as pending.

(ARINDAM MUKHERJEE, J.)

Questions this judgment answers

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Commercial Courts Act, 2015 — s. 12A.

Which court decided this case, and when?

Calcutta High Court, on 23 Nov 2023. The bench was ARINDAM MUKHERJEE.

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Calcutta High Court or eCourts case status. ← Search more judgments