Bombay High Court
CCI PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITEDversusBRIGHTON FACILITY INDIA MAINTENANCE SERVICES LLP AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- N JAMADAR
Holding
The Court held that there was no apparent error in the earlier order as the City Civil Court had indeed perused the plaint, and therefore the review petition was dismissed.
Summary
CCI Projects Private Ltd filed a review petition challenging the High Court's order of 24 November 2025, which had upheld a City Civil Court order rejecting the petitioner's motion to dismiss the plaint for non‑compliance with the mandatory pre‑institution mediation provision under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The petitioner argued that the lower court had not considered the averments in the plaint and that Section 12A should not apply when urgent relief is sought. The High Court examined the lower court's order and found that the judge had indeed perused the record and the plaint, contrary to the petitioner's claim. Consequently, the Court found no apparent error or sufficient cause to grant a review. The review petition was therefore dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the City Civil Court failed to consider the averments in the plaint while rejecting the petitioner's motion under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
- Whether Section 12A ceases to operate when the suit seeks urgent relief and the court permits institution without pre‑institution mediation.
- Whether there is any apparent error or sufficient cause to entertain a review of the High Court's order dated 24 November 2025.
Legislation cited
- Commercial Courts Act, 2015 — s. 12A
Subjects
- review petition
- pre‑institution mediation
- Commercial Courts Act
- Section 12A
- urgent relief
- civil procedure
Judgment
31-IA2205-2026INRPW47-2026.DOC
Santosh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2205 OF 2026
IN
REVIEW PETITION NO. 47 OF 2026
CCI Projects Private Limited ...Applicant/
Petitioner
SANTOSH Versus
SUBHASH
KULKARNI Brighton Facility India Maintenance
Digitally signed by
SANTOSH SUBHASH
KULKARNI
Services Llp And Ors …Respondents
Date: 2026.03.25
14:53:38 +0530
Mr. Yash Momaya, a/w Mehul Rathod, Darshana Vora,
Dhanashree Pawaskar, i/b Mehul Rathod, for the
Petitioner.
Mr. Amrut Joshi, a/w Yazad Udawadia, Nikhil Mishra and
Shravan Purohit, i/b Nikhil Mishra, for the Respondents.
CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J.
DATED: 24th MARCH, 2026
PC:-
IA/2205/2026
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant.
2. For the reasons assigned in the application and to
advance the cause of substantive justice, the delay in preferring
the review application stands condoned.
3. The application stands disposed.
RPW/47/2026
4. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
1/3
31-IA2205-2026INRPW47-2026.DOC
5. The petitioner seeks review of the order passed by this
Court on 24th November, 2025, whereby the challenge to an
order passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court, on 22 nd
July, 2024, thereby rejecting the Notice of Motion taken out by
the petitioner seeking rejection of the plaint for non-compliance
of the mandatory provision of pre-institution mediation under
Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, came to be
dismissed.
6. A submission was sought to be canvassed on behalf of the
petitioner that this Court in paragraph 6 of the order dated 24 th
November, 2025 has observed that, once the Court on the basis
of the averments in the plaint and documents forms an opinion
that the suit contemplated an urgent relief and grants
permission to institute the suit without pre-institution
mediation, the provision contained in Section 12A ceases to
operate. However, the learned Judge, City Civil Court, while
passing the order dated 9th February, 2023 had not considered
the averments in the plaint. Attention of the Court was invited
to the said order dated 9th February, 2023.
7. I ?nd it dif?cult to accede to the aforesaid submission, if
the said order is read in its entirety, the submission that the
learned Judge, City Civil Court, had only perused the Notice of
2/3
31-IA2205-2026INRPW47-2026.DOC
Motion and this Court committed an error in observing that the
learned Judge, City Civil Court, had perused the averments in
the plaint, is not borne out. In the said order, the learned
Judge, City Civil Court has clearly observed that, she had
perused the record and on the perusal of the record, it appeared
that the plaintiff has ?led the suit for various reliefs. Thus, it
cannot be inferred that the learned Judge had not perused the
averments in the plaint, and only the Notice of Motion was
considered.
8. Thus, this Court does not ?nd any error apparent on the
face of the record or any other suf?cient cause to review the
order passed by this Court dated 24th November, 2025.
9. The review petition thus stands dismissed.
[N. J. JAMADAR, J.]
3/3
Checking your session…