Archive · 23 Aug 2026
Bombay High Court Exempts Urgent Suits From Pre-Litigation Mediation
A housing society and some flat buyers sued a developer over rights in a housing project.
They said new construction could use land and building rights belonging to the society.
The society asked the court for urgent protection.
The developer said the society should first have tried a required mediation process.
It also argued that the case could not really be urgent because the society waited a long time to ask for temporary protection.
The Bombay High Court disagreed with dismissing the case for that reason.
The judge said the court should look at the whole case when deciding whether urgent help was genuinely being requested.
The court allowed the lawsuit to continue and ordered the developer’s application rejected with costs.
The Bombay High Court ruled that genuine urgency can exempt a commercial suit from mandatory pre-litigation mediation.
Justice Sandeep Marne rejected Oberoi Realty’s request to dismiss a suit filed by Exquisite Co-operative Housing Society and three flat purchasers.
The society claims a 25.33% undivided land share and corresponding rights in FSI and TDR in the Exquisite project.
Oberoi Realty argued that the urgency claim was a disguise because the suit was filed in March 2023 but interim relief was sought much later.
The court held that urgency must be assessed from the plaint and circumstances at filing, and dismissed the developer’s application with costs.
- Who
- Exquisite Co-operative Housing Society Ltd, three flat purchasers, and Oberoi Realty Ltd.
- What
- The Bombay High Court ruled that a commercial suit need not be rejected for failing to undergo pre-litigation mediation when genuine urgent interim relief is contemplated.
- When
- Justice Sandeep Marne issued the ruling on August 21, 2026; the report is dated August 23, 2026.
- Where
- The dispute concerns the Exquisite residential project in Goregaon East, Mumbai, and was decided by the Bombay High Court.
- Why
- The society alleged that continuing construction could consume its claimed share of land and FSI, creating a need for interim protection.
Housing Society and Court
Oberoi Realty
Whether mediation was required
Housing Society and Court
The society argued that its plaint and interim application genuinely sought protection against continuing construction and therefore fell within the urgent-relief exception.
Oberoi Realty
Oberoi Realty argued that the urgency claim was merely a disguise to avoid the mandatory Section 12A mediation requirement.
Effect of delay
Housing Society and Court
The society said construction was continuing and that its FSI was being used, so the need for protection remained ongoing.
Oberoi Realty
The developer pointed to the suit’s filing in March 2023 and the roughly two-and-a-half-year delay before seeking interim relief as evidence that there was no genuine urgency.
How urgency should be assessed
Housing Society and Court
The court held that urgency must be assessed holistically from the plaint and accompanying documents at the time the suit was instituted.
Oberoi Realty
Oberoi Realty sought to rely on the plaintiff’s later conduct, including the delay in seeking interim relief, to challenge the claim of urgency.
- Legal provision
- Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act generally requires pre-litigation mediation before a commercial suit unless urgent interim relief is contemplated.
- Judge
- Justice Sandeep Marne
- Plaintiffs
- Exquisite Co-operative Housing Society Ltd and three flat purchasers
- Developer
- Oberoi Realty Ltd
- Claimed land share
- 25.33% undivided share in the land, along with corresponding FSI and TDR rights
- Alternative compensation sought
- Rs 500 crore
- Court’s outcome
- The application to dismiss the suit was rejected with costs.