{"id":24592,"date":"2026-05-19T13:10:27","date_gmt":"2026-05-19T13:10:27","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/?p=24592"},"modified":"2026-05-19T13:15:39","modified_gmt":"2026-05-19T13:15:39","slug":"interplay-of-order-vii-rule-11-cpc-and-section-12-a-commercial-courts-act-2015-in-the-context-of-urgent-interim-relief","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/interplay-of-order-vii-rule-11-cpc-and-section-12-a-commercial-courts-act-2015-in-the-context-of-urgent-interim-relief\/","title":{"rendered":"Interplay of Order VII Rule 11 CPC and Section 12-A Commercial Courts Act 2015 in the context of urgent interim relief"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"introduction\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Introduction\"><\/span>Introduction<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The judgment delivered by the <strong><a target=\"_blank\" href=\"\/lawyers\/bombay.htm\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">High Court of Judicature at Bombay<\/a><\/strong> in <em>Paramvir Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. IIFL Finance Ltd. and Others<\/em> is an important decision concerning the interplay between the <strong>Commercial Courts Act, 2015<\/strong>, the <strong>SARFAESI Act, 2002<\/strong>, and the provisions relating to rejection of plaint under <strong>Order VII Rule 11<\/strong> of the <strong>Code of Civil Procedure, 1908<\/strong>.<\/p><div id=\"ez-toc-container\" class=\"ez-toc-v2_0_83 counter-hierarchy ez-toc-counter ez-toc-grey ez-toc-container-direction\">\n<div class=\"ez-toc-title-container\">\n<p class=\"ez-toc-title\" style=\"cursor:inherit\">Table of Contents<\/p>\n<span class=\"ez-toc-title-toggle\"><a href=\"#\" class=\"ez-toc-pull-right ez-toc-btn ez-toc-btn-xs ez-toc-btn-default ez-toc-toggle\" aria-label=\"Toggle Table of Content\"><span class=\"ez-toc-js-icon-con\"><span class=\"\"><span class=\"eztoc-hide\" style=\"display:none;\">Toggle<\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-icon-toggle-span\"><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" class=\"list-377408\" width=\"20px\" height=\"20px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" fill=\"none\"><path d=\"M6 6H4v2h2V6zm14 0H8v2h12V6zM4 11h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2zM4 16h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2z\" fill=\"currentColor\"><\/path><\/svg><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" class=\"arrow-unsorted-368013\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" width=\"10px\" height=\"10px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" version=\"1.2\" baseProfile=\"tiny\"><path d=\"M18.2 9.3l-6.2-6.3-6.2 6.3c-.2.2-.3.4-.3.7s.1.5.3.7c.2.2.4.3.7.3h11c.3 0 .5-.1.7-.3.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7zM5.8 14.7l6.2 6.3 6.2-6.3c.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7c-.2-.2-.4-.3-.7-.3h-11c-.3 0-.5.1-.7.3-.2.2-.3.5-.3.7s.1.5.3.7z\"\/><\/svg><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/div>\n<nav><ul class='ez-toc-list ez-toc-list-level-1 ' ><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-1\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/interplay-of-order-vii-rule-11-cpc-and-section-12-a-commercial-courts-act-2015-in-the-context-of-urgent-interim-relief\/#Introduction\" >Introduction<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-2\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/interplay-of-order-vii-rule-11-cpc-and-section-12-a-commercial-courts-act-2015-in-the-context-of-urgent-interim-relief\/#Importance_of_the_Judgment\" >Importance of the Judgment<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-3\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/interplay-of-order-vii-rule-11-cpc-and-section-12-a-commercial-courts-act-2015-in-the-context-of-urgent-interim-relief\/#Court_Analysis_of_Section_12-A\" >Court Analysis of Section 12-A<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-4\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/interplay-of-order-vii-rule-11-cpc-and-section-12-a-commercial-courts-act-2015-in-the-context-of-urgent-interim-relief\/#Key_Issues_Considered_by_the_Court\" >Key Issues Considered by the Court<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-5\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/interplay-of-order-vii-rule-11-cpc-and-section-12-a-commercial-courts-act-2015-in-the-context-of-urgent-interim-relief\/#Legal_Framework_Involved\" >Legal Framework Involved<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-6\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/interplay-of-order-vii-rule-11-cpc-and-section-12-a-commercial-courts-act-2015-in-the-context-of-urgent-interim-relief\/#Factual_And_Procedural_Background\" >Factual And Procedural Background<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-7\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/interplay-of-order-vii-rule-11-cpc-and-section-12-a-commercial-courts-act-2015-in-the-context-of-urgent-interim-relief\/#Loan_Facilities_And_Security_Interests\" >Loan Facilities And Security Interests<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-8\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/interplay-of-order-vii-rule-11-cpc-and-section-12-a-commercial-courts-act-2015-in-the-context-of-urgent-interim-relief\/#Recovery_Actions_Initiated_By_Defendants\" >Recovery Actions Initiated By Defendants<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-9\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/interplay-of-order-vii-rule-11-cpc-and-section-12-a-commercial-courts-act-2015-in-the-context-of-urgent-interim-relief\/#Framework_Agreement_And_Settlement_Arrangement\" >Framework Agreement And Settlement Arrangement<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-10\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/interplay-of-order-vii-rule-11-cpc-and-section-12-a-commercial-courts-act-2015-in-the-context-of-urgent-interim-relief\/#Commercial_Suit_And_Interim_Reliefs\" >Commercial Suit And Interim Reliefs<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-11\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/interplay-of-order-vii-rule-11-cpc-and-section-12-a-commercial-courts-act-2015-in-the-context-of-urgent-interim-relief\/#Grounds_For_Rejection_Of_Plaint\" >Grounds For Rejection Of Plaint<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-12\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/interplay-of-order-vii-rule-11-cpc-and-section-12-a-commercial-courts-act-2015-in-the-context-of-urgent-interim-relief\/#Dispute_Before_The_Court\" >Dispute Before The Court<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-13\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/interplay-of-order-vii-rule-11-cpc-and-section-12-a-commercial-courts-act-2015-in-the-context-of-urgent-interim-relief\/#Issue_Of_Jurisdiction_Under_SARFAESI_Act\" >Issue Of Jurisdiction Under SARFAESI Act<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-14\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/interplay-of-order-vii-rule-11-cpc-and-section-12-a-commercial-courts-act-2015-in-the-context-of-urgent-interim-relief\/#Issue_Of_Cause_Of_Action\" >Issue Of Cause Of Action<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-15\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/interplay-of-order-vii-rule-11-cpc-and-section-12-a-commercial-courts-act-2015-in-the-context-of-urgent-interim-relief\/#Mandatory_Pre-Institution_Mediation_Under_Commercial_Courts_Act\" >Mandatory Pre-Institution Mediation Under Commercial Courts Act<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-16\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/interplay-of-order-vii-rule-11-cpc-and-section-12-a-commercial-courts-act-2015-in-the-context-of-urgent-interim-relief\/#Plaintiffs_Contentions_Before_The_Court\" >Plaintiffs\u2019 Contentions Before The Court<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-17\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/interplay-of-order-vii-rule-11-cpc-and-section-12-a-commercial-courts-act-2015-in-the-context-of-urgent-interim-relief\/#Key_Legal_Issues_In_The_Case\" >Key Legal Issues In The Case<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-18\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/interplay-of-order-vii-rule-11-cpc-and-section-12-a-commercial-courts-act-2015-in-the-context-of-urgent-interim-relief\/#Reasoning_and_Analysis_of_the_Court\" >Reasoning and Analysis of the Court<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-19\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/interplay-of-order-vii-rule-11-cpc-and-section-12-a-commercial-courts-act-2015-in-the-context-of-urgent-interim-relief\/#Section_34_SARFAESI_Act_Analysis\" >Section 34 SARFAESI Act Analysis<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-20\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/interplay-of-order-vii-rule-11-cpc-and-section-12-a-commercial-courts-act-2015-in-the-context-of-urgent-interim-relief\/#Key_Findings_on_Civil_Court_Jurisdiction\" >Key Findings on Civil Court Jurisdiction<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-21\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/interplay-of-order-vii-rule-11-cpc-and-section-12-a-commercial-courts-act-2015-in-the-context-of-urgent-interim-relief\/#Cause_of_Action_Against_Defendants\" >Cause of Action Against Defendants<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-22\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/interplay-of-order-vii-rule-11-cpc-and-section-12-a-commercial-courts-act-2015-in-the-context-of-urgent-interim-relief\/#Interpretation_of_Section_12-A_of_the_Commercial_Courts_Act_2015\" >Interpretation of Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-23\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/interplay-of-order-vii-rule-11-cpc-and-section-12-a-commercial-courts-act-2015-in-the-context-of-urgent-interim-relief\/#Important_Supreme_Court_Decisions\" >Important Supreme Court Decisions<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-24\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/interplay-of-order-vii-rule-11-cpc-and-section-12-a-commercial-courts-act-2015-in-the-context-of-urgent-interim-relief\/#Patil_Automation_Case_Analysis\" >Patil Automation Case Analysis<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-25\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/interplay-of-order-vii-rule-11-cpc-and-section-12-a-commercial-courts-act-2015-in-the-context-of-urgent-interim-relief\/#Yamini_Manohar_Case_Analysis\" >Yamini Manohar Case Analysis<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-26\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/interplay-of-order-vii-rule-11-cpc-and-section-12-a-commercial-courts-act-2015-in-the-context-of-urgent-interim-relief\/#Dhanbad_Fuels_Case_Analysis\" >Dhanbad Fuels Case Analysis<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-27\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/interplay-of-order-vii-rule-11-cpc-and-section-12-a-commercial-courts-act-2015-in-the-context-of-urgent-interim-relief\/#Novenco_Building_and_Industry_Analysis\" >Novenco Building and Industry Analysis<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-28\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/interplay-of-order-vii-rule-11-cpc-and-section-12-a-commercial-courts-act-2015-in-the-context-of-urgent-interim-relief\/#Urgent_Interim_Relief_Findings\" >Urgent Interim Relief Findings<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-29\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/interplay-of-order-vii-rule-11-cpc-and-section-12-a-commercial-courts-act-2015-in-the-context-of-urgent-interim-relief\/#Final_Observations_of_the_Court\" >Final Observations of the Court<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-30\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/interplay-of-order-vii-rule-11-cpc-and-section-12-a-commercial-courts-act-2015-in-the-context-of-urgent-interim-relief\/#Final_Decision_of_the_Court\" >Final Decision of the Court<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-31\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/interplay-of-order-vii-rule-11-cpc-and-section-12-a-commercial-courts-act-2015-in-the-context-of-urgent-interim-relief\/#Point_of_Law_Settled_in_the_Case\" >Point of Law Settled in the Case<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-32\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/interplay-of-order-vii-rule-11-cpc-and-section-12-a-commercial-courts-act-2015-in-the-context-of-urgent-interim-relief\/#Key_Legal_Principles_Established\" >Key Legal Principles Established<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-33\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/interplay-of-order-vii-rule-11-cpc-and-section-12-a-commercial-courts-act-2015-in-the-context-of-urgent-interim-relief\/#Case_Details\" >Case Details<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n\n\n\n\n<p>The Court examined whether a commercial suit seeking specific performance and urgent interim relief could be rejected at the threshold for non-compliance with mandatory pre-institution mediation under Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"importance-of-the-judgment\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Importance_of_the_Judgment\"><\/span>Importance of the Judgment<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The judgment assumes considerable importance for commercial litigation because it clarifies the meaning of the expression <strong>\u201curgent interim relief\u201d<\/strong> under Section 12-A and explains the limited jurisdiction of courts while exercising powers under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The Court also discussed the extent of the bar under Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act and reiterated that civil courts retain jurisdiction where substantive contractual and specific performance issues are involved beyond the scope of Debt Recovery Tribunal proceedings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"court-analysis-of-section-12a\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Court_Analysis_of_Section_12-A\"><\/span>Court Analysis of Section 12-A<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The Court undertook a detailed analysis of recent Supreme Court precedents interpreting Section 12-A and emphasized that the Court must examine the pleadings holistically from the standpoint of the plaintiff while determining whether urgent interim relief is genuinely contemplated.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"key-issues-considered-by-the-court\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Key_Issues_Considered_by_the_Court\"><\/span>Key Issues Considered by the Court<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Applicability of mandatory pre-institution mediation under Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Scope and limitations of Order VII Rule 11 CPC relating to rejection of plaint.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Meaning and interpretation of \u201curgent interim relief.\u201d<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Extent of the jurisdictional bar under Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Maintainability of suits involving specific performance and contractual disputes.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Jurisdiction of civil courts vis-\u00e0-vis Debt Recovery Tribunal proceedings.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"legal-framework-involved\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Legal_Framework_Involved\"><\/span>Legal Framework Involved<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Statute \/ Provision<\/th><th>Subject Matter<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td>Commercial Courts Act, 2015<\/td><td>Commercial disputes and pre-institution mediation requirements.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Section 12-A<\/td><td>Mandatory pre-institution mediation before filing commercial suits.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>SARFAESI Act, 2002<\/td><td>Enforcement of security interests by financial institutions.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Section 34 SARFAESI Act<\/td><td>Bar on civil court jurisdiction in matters falling within DRT powers.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Order VII Rule 11 CPC<\/td><td>Rejection of plaint at the threshold.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Code of Civil Procedure, 1908<\/td><td>Procedural framework governing civil litigation.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"factual-and-procedural-background\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Factual_And_Procedural_Background\"><\/span>Factual And Procedural Background<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The plaintiffs were developers engaged in slum rehabilitation and redevelopment projects known as \u201cLa Maison,\u201d \u201cSignature Suites,\u201d and \u201cCelyn Project.\u201d For the purpose of financing these projects, the plaintiffs had availed various loan facilities from defendant nos. 1 and 2, including loans secured through mortgages and deposit of title deeds relating to certain flats and premises.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"loan-facilities-and-security-interests\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Loan_Facilities_And_Security_Interests\"><\/span>Loan Facilities And Security Interests<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Loans were availed from defendant nos. 1 and 2.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The facilities were secured through mortgages.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Title deeds relating to flats and premises were deposited as security.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The loans were connected to redevelopment and slum rehabilitation projects.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>Due to defaults in repayment obligations, one of the loan accounts was declared a Non-Performing Asset (NPA) on 3 November 2024. Thereafter, defendant no. 2 initiated several recovery measures. Demand notices were issued under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 on 14 November 2024. Proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 were initiated regarding dishonoured cheques. Arbitration proceedings were also invoked under the relevant loan agreements, and insolvency proceedings under Section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 were initiated against certain guarantors.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"recovery-actions-initiated-by-defendants\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Recovery_Actions_Initiated_By_Defendants\"><\/span>Recovery Actions Initiated By Defendants<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Action<\/th><th>Legal Provision<\/th><th>Date \/ Details<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td>Loan Account Declared NPA<\/td><td>Banking Recovery Mechanism<\/td><td>3 November 2024<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Demand Notices Issued<\/td><td>Section 13(2), SARFAESI Act, 2002<\/td><td>14 November 2024<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Cheque Dishonour Proceedings<\/td><td>Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881<\/td><td>Initiated Against Plaintiffs<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Arbitration Proceedings<\/td><td>Relevant Loan Agreements<\/td><td>Invoked By Defendants<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Insolvency Proceedings<\/td><td>Section 95, Insolvency And Bankruptcy Code, 2016<\/td><td>Initiated Against Guarantors<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p>According to the plaintiffs, while the disputes were ongoing, the parties entered into a comprehensive settlement arrangement through a Framework Agreement dated 20 December 2024. Under this agreement, a new developer, defendant no. 3, was appointed for certain redevelopment projects, and a profit-sharing arrangement was also executed. The plaintiffs contended that the defendants had accepted and acted upon the Framework Agreement by obtaining benefits under it, including assignment and transfer of development rights and execution of registered agreements relating to flats and redevelopment projects.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"framework-agreement-and-settlement-arrangement\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Framework_Agreement_And_Settlement_Arrangement\"><\/span>Framework Agreement And Settlement Arrangement<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>The Framework Agreement was executed on 20 December 2024.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Defendant no. 3 was appointed as a new developer for redevelopment projects.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>A profit-sharing arrangement was agreed between the parties.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants accepted benefits arising from the agreement.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Development rights and redevelopment-related agreements were transferred and executed.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>The plaintiffs further alleged that despite taking benefits under the settlement arrangement, defendant nos. 1 and 2 continued coercive recovery actions under the SARFAESI Act and sought enforcement of security interests. Apprehending imminent loss of secured assets and breach of the Framework Agreement, the plaintiffs instituted a commercial suit seeking enforcement and specific performance of the Framework Agreement and related profit-sharing arrangements. Interim reliefs were also sought restraining the defendants from taking precipitative actions against the secured assets.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"commercial-suit-and-interim-reliefs\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Commercial_Suit_And_Interim_Reliefs\"><\/span>Commercial Suit And Interim Reliefs<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>The plaintiffs sought enforcement of the Framework Agreement.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Specific performance of contractual obligations was requested.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The suit also concerned the related profit-sharing arrangements.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Interim reliefs were sought against coercive recovery measures.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The plaintiffs attempted to restrain actions against secured assets.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>The defendants thereafter filed Interim Applications under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint. They argued that the suit was barred under Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act, lacked cause of action, and was also barred due to non-compliance with mandatory pre-institution mediation under Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"grounds-for-rejection-of-plaint\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Grounds_For_Rejection_Of_Plaint\"><\/span>Grounds For Rejection Of Plaint<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Ground Raised By Defendants<\/th><th>Relevant Provision<\/th><th>Defendants\u2019 Contention<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td>Bar Of Jurisdiction<\/td><td>Section 34, SARFAESI Act<\/td><td>Civil court jurisdiction excluded in matters relating to recovery and security enforcement.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Absence Of Cause Of Action<\/td><td>Order VII Rule 11 CPC<\/td><td>No valid cause of action existed against certain defendants.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Non-Compliance With Mandatory Mediation<\/td><td>Section 12-A, Commercial Courts Act<\/td><td>Plaintiffs failed to exhaust pre-institution mediation before filing the suit.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"dispute-before-the-court\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Dispute_Before_The_Court\"><\/span>Dispute Before The Court<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The principal dispute before the Court was whether the plaint in the commercial suit was liable to be rejected at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Three major legal objections were raised by the defendants.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"issue-of-jurisdiction-under-sarfaesi-act\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Issue_Of_Jurisdiction_Under_SARFAESI_Act\"><\/span>Issue Of Jurisdiction Under SARFAESI Act<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>First, the defendants contended that the civil court\u2019s jurisdiction was barred under Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act because the dispute essentially related to enforcement of security interests and recovery proceedings, matters falling within the jurisdiction of the Debt Recovery Tribunal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"issue-of-cause-of-action\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Issue_Of_Cause_Of_Action\"><\/span>Issue Of Cause Of Action<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Second, it was argued that there was no cause of action against certain defendants, particularly defendant no. 2, because it was allegedly not a signatory to the Framework Agreement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"mandatory-pre-institution-mediation-under-commercial-courts-act\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Mandatory_Pre-Institution_Mediation_Under_Commercial_Courts_Act\"><\/span>Mandatory Pre-Institution Mediation Under Commercial Courts Act<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Third, and most importantly, the defendants argued that the suit was barred under Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act since the plaintiffs had not exhausted the mandatory requirement of pre-institution mediation before filing the commercial suit. According to the defendants, the plaintiffs had merely used the plea of urgent interim relief as a camouflage to bypass the statutory mediation requirement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"plaintiffs-contentions-before-the-court\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Plaintiffs_Contentions_Before_The_Court\"><\/span>Plaintiffs\u2019 Contentions Before The Court<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>The plaintiffs, on the other hand, argued that the suit primarily sought specific performance and enforcement of contractual obligations arising under the Framework Agreement and profit-sharing arrangement, which could not be adjudicated by the Debt Recovery Tribunal under the SARFAESI mechanism. The plaintiffs further contended that urgent interim relief was genuinely required because coercive actions under SARFAESI proceedings threatened their rights and assets despite the settlement arrangement already being acted upon by the parties.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"key-legal-issues-in-the-case\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Key_Legal_Issues_In_The_Case\"><\/span>Key Legal Issues In The Case<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Whether the plaint was liable to rejection under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Whether Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act barred the jurisdiction of the civil court.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Whether a valid cause of action existed against all defendants.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Whether non-compliance with Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act barred the suit.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Whether urgent interim relief justified bypassing pre-institution mediation.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"reasoning-and-analysis-of-the-court\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Reasoning_and_Analysis_of_the_Court\"><\/span>Reasoning and Analysis of the Court<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>Court undertook a detailed examination of the plaint and the legal principles governing rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The Court observed that the substantial prayers in the suit related to enforcement and implementation of the Framework Agreement and the profit-sharing arrangement with defendant no. 3. The Court noted that the plaintiffs had specifically pleaded that the agreements were acted upon and that the defendants had availed benefits arising from them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"section-34-sarfaesi-act-analysis\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Section_34_SARFAESI_Act_Analysis\"><\/span>Section 34 SARFAESI Act Analysis<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The Court rejected the argument that the suit was barred under Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act. Justice Godse observed that although the plaintiffs had challenged certain SARFAESI measures, the substantive reliefs sought in the suit related to specific performance of contractual obligations and implementation of settlement agreements.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Such issues were outside the scope of adjudication by the Debt Recovery Tribunal under the SARFAESI framework. Reliance was placed upon the Supreme Court judgment in Punjab &amp; Sind Bank v. Frontline Corporation Ltd., where it was held that the jurisdiction of civil courts is barred only in respect of matters which the DRT or Appellate Tribunal is empowered to determine under the SARFAESI Act.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"key-findings-on-civil-court-jurisdiction\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Key_Findings_on_Civil_Court_Jurisdiction\"><\/span>Key Findings on Civil Court Jurisdiction<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Specific performance disputes remain maintainable before civil courts.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Commercial contractual disputes cannot automatically be barred under SARFAESI proceedings.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>DRT jurisdiction is limited to matters expressly empowered under the SARFAESI Act.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Settlement agreement enforcement can still be adjudicated in civil proceedings.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"cause-of-action-against-defendants\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Cause_of_Action_Against_Defendants\"><\/span>Cause of Action Against Defendants<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The Court further held that sufficient cause of action had been pleaded against all defendants. Justice Godse observed that the plaint specifically alleged that defendant no. 2 had acted upon the Framework Agreement and thereafter initiated coercive actions contrary to the settlement arrangement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Since the pleadings disclosed triable issues concerning contractual obligations and alleged breaches, rejection of the plaint at the threshold was impermissible.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"section-12a-commercial-courts-act\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Interpretation_of_Section_12-A_of_the_Commercial_Courts_Act_2015\"><\/span>Interpretation of Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>A substantial part of the judgment dealt with interpretation of Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The Court examined the legislative scheme mandating pre-institution mediation in commercial disputes where urgent interim relief is not contemplated.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Justice Godse referred extensively to recent Supreme Court decisions including Patil Automation Pvt. Ltd. v. Rakheja Engineers Pvt. Ltd., (2022) 10 SCC 1, Yamini Manohar v. T.K.D. Keerthi, (2024) 5 SCC 815, and Dhanbad Fuels Pvt. Ltd.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"important-supreme-court-decisions\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Important_Supreme_Court_Decisions\"><\/span>Important Supreme Court Decisions<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Case Name<\/th><th>Legal Principle<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td>Patil Automation Pvt. Ltd. v. Rakheja Engineers Pvt. Ltd.<\/td><td>Section 12-A pre-institution mediation is mandatory unless urgent interim relief is contemplated.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Yamini Manohar v. T.K.D. Keerthi<\/td><td>Courts must examine urgency from the plaintiff\u2019s standpoint.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Dhanbad Fuels Pvt. Ltd.<\/td><td>Rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is a drastic power requiring strict scrutiny.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Novenco Building and Industry<\/td><td>Urgent judicial intervention depends on immediacy of harm and irreparable prejudice.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"patil-automation-case-analysis\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Patil_Automation_Case_Analysis\"><\/span>Patil Automation Case Analysis<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>In Patil Automation Pvt. Ltd. v. Rakheja Engineers Pvt. Ltd., (2022) 10 SCC 1, the Supreme Court had declared Section 12-A mandatory and held that commercial suits filed without pre-institution mediation are liable to rejection unless urgent interim relief is genuinely contemplated.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"yamini-manohar-case-analysis\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Yamini_Manohar_Case_Analysis\"><\/span>Yamini Manohar Case Analysis<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>The Court then discussed the Supreme Court judgment in Yamini Manohar v. T.K.D. Keerthi, (2024) 5 SCC 815 : (2024) 3 SCC (Civ) 436.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In that decision, the Supreme Court clarified that the expression \u201ccontemplate urgent interim relief\u201d requires courts to examine the plaint, documents, and surrounding circumstances from the plaintiff\u2019s standpoint.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The Supreme Court also warned that parties should not camouflage ordinary disputes as urgent matters merely to bypass mediation requirements. At the same time, the Court clarified that non-grant of interim relief at a later stage does not automatically justify rejection of the plaint.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"dhanbad-fuels-case-analysis\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Dhanbad_Fuels_Case_Analysis\"><\/span>Dhanbad Fuels Case Analysis<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Justice Godse also referred to the Supreme Court judgment in Dhanbad Fuels Pvt. Ltd., where it was held that rejection of plaint is a drastic power terminating a civil action at the threshold and therefore the conditions under Order VII Rule 11 CPC must be applied strictly.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The Supreme Court further emphasized that the real test is whether urgent interim relief could reasonably be contemplated from the plaintiff\u2019s standpoint at the time of institution of the suit.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"novenco-building-industry-analysis\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Novenco_Building_and_Industry_Analysis\"><\/span>Novenco Building and Industry Analysis<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>The Court additionally referred to the recent Supreme Court decision in Novenco Building and Industry, where the Supreme Court held that courts must examine whether there exists a real need for urgent intervention by looking at the immediacy of harm, irreparable prejudice, or the risk of losing rights and assets.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In Novenco, which concerned continuing patent and design infringement, the Supreme Court observed that insisting upon mediation in the face of ongoing infringement could leave the plaintiff remediless.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"urgent-interim-relief-findings\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Urgent_Interim_Relief_Findings\"><\/span>Urgent Interim Relief Findings<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>Applying these principles, Justice Godse concluded that the plaintiffs had adequately demonstrated the existence of urgent circumstances.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>The defendants were continuing recovery proceedings.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Security interests were being enforced.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Possession of secured assets was being threatened.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The plaintiffs faced apprehension of irreparable harm.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Immediate judicial protection was necessary.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>The pleadings revealed that despite settlement agreements being acted upon, the defendants were continuing recovery proceedings, enforcing security interests, and threatening possession of secured assets.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>From the standpoint of the plaintiffs, there was genuine apprehension of irreparable harm requiring immediate judicial protection.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"final-observations-of-the-court\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Final_Observations_of_the_Court\"><\/span>Final Observations of the Court<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The Court therefore held that the plaint could not be rejected for non-compliance with Section 12-A because the suit genuinely contemplated urgent interim relief.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The Court also reiterated that rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is permissible only where the bar is clearly apparent on the face of the plaint itself.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Since substantial and triable issues arose in the present case, the matter deserved full adjudication through trial.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"final-decision-of-the-court\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Final_Decision_of_the_Court\"><\/span>Final Decision of the Court<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The Bombay High Court dismissed all interim applications filed by the defendants seeking rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The Court held that no statutory bar under Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act or Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act was clearly established at the threshold stage.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The Court further held that the plaintiffs had genuinely contemplated urgent interim relief and that the pleadings disclosed substantial triable issues concerning enforcement of the Framework Agreement and related contractual obligations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Consequently, the commercial suit was permitted to proceed in accordance with law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"point-of-law-settled-in-the-case\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Point_of_Law_Settled_in_the_Case\"><\/span>Point of Law Settled in the Case<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The judgment settles important principles concerning the scope of Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act and rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The Court clarified that the test for exemption from mandatory pre-institution mediation is whether urgent interim relief is genuinely contemplated from the standpoint of the plaintiff on a holistic reading of the plaint and supporting documents.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"key-legal-principles-established\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Key_Legal_Principles_Established\"><\/span>Key Legal Principles Established<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>The existence of SARFAESI proceedings does not automatically bar civil suits seeking substantive reliefs of specific performance and enforcement of settlement agreements.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is a drastic remedy and can only be exercised where the statutory bar is clearly evident on the face of the plaint.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Courts should not reject plaints where adjudication of disputed questions of fact or law is necessary.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Genuine cases involving urgent interim relief should not be denied judicial remedies merely due to procedural technicalities under Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Courts must prevent misuse of Section 12-A while balancing access to justice in commercial disputes.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>Importantly, the judgment reinforces the principle that courts must prevent misuse of Section 12-A while simultaneously ensuring that genuine cases requiring urgent protection are not denied access to judicial remedies merely on technical procedural grounds.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"case-details\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Case_Details\"><\/span>Case Details<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Particulars<\/th><th>Details<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>Case Title<\/strong><\/td><td>Paramvir Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. IIFL Finance Ltd. and Others<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Date of Order<\/strong><\/td><td>4 April 2026<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Case Number<\/strong><\/td><td>Commercial Suit No. 126 of 2025<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Neutral Citation<\/strong><\/td><td>2026:BHC-OS:11426<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Court<\/strong><\/td><td>High Court of Judicature at Bombay<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Hon\u2019ble Judge<\/strong><\/td><td>Justice Gauri Godse<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Disclaimer:&nbsp;<\/strong>Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.<br>&nbsp;<br><strong>Written By:&nbsp;Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, <\/strong>IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi<br>&nbsp;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Introduction The judgment delivered by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Paramvir Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. IIFL Finance Ltd. and Others is an important decision concerning the interplay between the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, the SARFAESI Act, 2002, and the provisions relating to rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":56,"featured_media":24591,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"two_page_speed":[],"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"_joinchat":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[19],"tags":[1008,28],"class_list":{"0":"post-24592","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-civil-law","8":"tag-civil-law","9":"tag-top-news"},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/155477.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24592","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/56"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=24592"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24592\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":24705,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24592\/revisions\/24705"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/24591"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=24592"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=24592"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=24592"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}