Calcutta High Court Upholds Berger Paints' Exemption From Mandatory Pre-Litigation Mediation In ₹1 Crore Suit Over Urgent Interim Relief Plea

The Calcutta High Court recently refused to revoke an earlier order that had exempted Berger Paints India Limited from undergoing pre-litigation mediation before filing a commercial suit against GPHP Holdings Pvt Ltd, a manufacturing company. The dispute related to the recovery of Rs. 1.01 crore for paints and coatings sold and delivered between February and June 2024.

In an order delivered on November 7, 2025, a single bench of Justice Aniruddha Roy held that pre-litigation mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, is mandatory only when no urgent interim relief is contemplated.

It observed, “If the plaintiff does not contemplate any urgent interim relief, then it is a mandatory requirement under the statute to avail of the remedy of pre-litigation mediation. Therefore, if an urgent interim relief is contemplated by the plaintiff, there is no bar under the Section upon the plaintiff to file the necessary civil action without exhausting the remedy of pre-litigation mediation. To ascertain whether an urgent interim relief has been contemplated by the plaintiff, the averments in the plaint are to be taken as true and correct and to be read as sacrosanct.”

The case arose from a suit filed by Berger Paints seeking recovery of dues for supplies made to GPHP Holdings. Berger Paints claimed that it had to move the court urgently because GPHP had informed it about plans to sell its factory land at Sarurpur Industrial Area, Faridabad, and had also proposed a Scheme of Compromise and Arrangement under Section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013 before the National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata Bench, to settle its debts. Berger Paints had rejected this proposal and sought an injunction to prevent the transfer of assets.

GPHP Holdings, argued that there was no real urgency and that the plaintiff had bypassed a statutory process. The company contended that the alleged default occurred in June 2024 and that the plaintiff was aware of its financial difficulties long before the suit was filed, leaving no ground for an urgent interim relief. 

Berger Paints, countered that Section 12A requires only that the plaintiff “contemplates” urgent relief and not that such relief must actually be granted. He argued that the communications and meetings in February and March 2025, where GPHP confirmed its plan to sell its plant, were enough to establish urgency.

It cited apex court  precedents which held that courts should not ordinarily interfere with a plaintiff's claim of urgency unless it is “palpably erroneous or mala fide.”

The court agreed with Berger Paints and held that the emails dated February 12 and March 24, 2025, clearly showed a basis for contemplating urgent relief. Referring to Yamini Manohar, the court said:

“The question whether a suit involves any urgent interim relief is to be determined solely on the basis of the pleadings and the relief(s) sought by the plaintiff. If a plaintiff seeks any urgent interim relief, the suit cannot be dismissed on the ground that the plaintiff has not exhausted the pre-institution remedy of mediation.”

The court subsequently concluded,

“It matters little whether ultimately the plaintiff would succeed on its prayer for interim relief or on the suit's merits; what matters is that the averments in the plaint should show a contemplation by the plaintiff for an urgent interim relief.”

Finding no error in the earlier order of April 16, 2025, which had permitted Berger Paints to bypass pre-litigation mediation, the court dismissed GPHP's application. 

Case Title: Berger Paints India Limited vs GPHP Holdings Pvt Ltd

Case Number: IA NO. GA-COM/3/2025 In CS-COM/48/2025 

For  Plaintiff : Senior Advocate Anirban Ray with Advocates Soham Sen, Snehashis Sen

For Defendant : Advocates Suddhasatva Banerjee, Kanishk Kejriwal, Aishwarya Kumar Awasthi