Petition under Arlicle 227 of the constitution of lndia against the order dated

2810112026 passed in LA.No.64 of 2026 in COS No.6 of 2026 on the fite of the

Principal special court in the cadre of District Judge for Trial and Disposal of

Commercial Disputes at Hyderabad.

[ 34e1 ]

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA

AND

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 315oF 2026

Between:

1. M/s Pioneer Aluminium lndustries Limited, Having its registered office at

plot

No.703, Sriniketan Colony, Road No.3, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, Telangana

- 500034. Rep by rts Director, Finance, S. Ganapathi Rao. S/o Sri Srirama

t\Iurthy, aged about 68 years

2. PCIL Power and Holdings Limited, 8-2-2681 A,/S/'1, Road No.3, plot

No. 705

Banjara Hills, Hyderabad - 500034, Telangana - lndia S/ o. petluru

Krishna

Reddy, aged about 60 years

..Petitioners/Defendant No.1 and 3

AND

1. M/s Ras AI Khaimah lnvestment Authority, Having its office at Ras AL

Khaimah, PO Box No. 31291. Ras Al Khaimah, United Arab Emrrates.

...RespondenUPlaintiff

2. Penna Cement lndustries Limited, 8-3-975, Plot No. 128, Srinagar Colony,

Khairatabad, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500073 - lndia.

3. Pioneer Power Limited, B-2-268lNSl1 , Road No.3, Plot No. 705 Banjara Hills,

Hyderabad - 500034. Telangana - lndia.

4. Penna Global lnvestments FZ-LLC, PO Box 31291, Al Jazeera, Al Hamra,

Ras Al Khaimah, United Arab Emirates.

-

5

o

7

Pioneer Genco Limited, B_2_26BtNSt1

, Road No.3, plct

No. 705 Banjara Hills,

Hyderabad - 500034, Telangana _ lndia.

Pioneer Builders Limited, House No g_2_309/M/5,

Nrlodaya Colony, Road

No

'14,

Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, Telangana _500034

ldia

PR Cement Holdings Lrmited, plot

No. 705, Roac No.3, Banjara Hills,

Hyderabad, Telangana - 500034, lndia

8 Pioneer power

Corporation Limrted, B-2_26BtAlSt1

, Rc; d No.3, plot

No. 705

Banjara Hills, Hyderabad - 500034, t"tang"na - inOia

9. PR Energy Hording Limited, B-2-26BrArs/1, Road No.3 )rot

No. 705 Banjara

Hills, Hyderabad - 500034. Tetangana tnOia

10'sRrBA rndustries Limited, 8-2-268r tus/1 , Road No.3, l,rot No. 705 Banjara

Hills, Hyderabad - S0OO34, Telangana - tndia.

,1

[r_l-

Pratap Reddy, B_2_26BtA/St1 , Road No.3, Banlar : Hiils, Hyderabad _

500034, Telangana _ lndia.

Limited, 105 Cecil Street, #,l5_02, The )ctagon, Singapore

12. Metra Pte

0659534.

l.A. NO:1oF 2026

,a

[U"*:#""ts

pre

Limrted,

.105

Cecit Streer, #15_02, Thi: ]ctason, Singapore

14. Mr. Madhu Koneru, Villa R_46, Emirates Hills, Third Savr an Street. p.O

Box

17056, Dubai, United Arab Emirates.

15.A1 Plus Hordings LLC,

_office

G3.1, Regus AL Jaidat Business centre,

Building 84, Street 224, piazza

fevef , O6OS^ eanat t uartier, The pearl,

Doha, Qatar. (Respondents

No. 2 to j 5 Not Necessarl rarties

in this Civil

Revision petition)

...Respond,: rts / Respondents

Petition under section 151 of cPC praying that in the crrcL.r lstances stated inthe affidavit fired in support of the p-etition, tr.,L riigh ;"rn may b,r preased to stay a,further proceedinss in CoS

I: 9."f

zoio p.ilirg'o"ror"

,.,,

"r"":o['"rn"J*,

special court in the cadre of Drstrict Judge for iria-r ano Disp: ;ar of commerciar

Disputes at Hyderabad.

Counset for the petition"*,

:Ij-lylls+t

DESA|, SR coUNSE L,

REPRESENTTNG

Ms. KOpAL SXr,r lRar

Counset for the Respondent No.1:

:Sll

g RAV|, SR COUNSEL. I IEPRESENT|NG

SRI G VAMSHI KRISHNA

The Court made the following: ORDER

2

MB,J & GPK,J

Crp_315_2025

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA

AND

THE HON'BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.315 OF 2o26

DATE OF ORDER: L1.O2.2O26

Between:

M /

s. Pioneer Aluminium lndustrics Limited,

Rep. by its Director, lrinance, S. Ganapathi Rao and Another

...,.Petitioners

AND

M/s. Ras Al Khaimah InvcstnrenL Authority,

United Arab Emirates and 14 Othcrs

..,,. Responde nts

Mr. Avinash Desal, Icarnc(l Serlior Counsel rcprcseirting lMs Kopal Sharraff, lcarncd

counsci appearing lor Lhe pctitioners

Mr. S.Ravi, lcarncd Senior Counscl rcprcsenung I\,lr (i Vamshi Krishna, lcarned

counsel appcaring for thc re sponclcnt No. 1.

ORDER: (Pcr Honblc.Justice NIoLrshLlmi Bhir t tachar_\'a)

1. The prcsent Civil Revision Pctition has becn filed against an

order dated 2a.O1.2026 passcci b1' thc lcarned Commercial Court

at Hyderabzrd in LA.No.64 ot 2026 in C.O.S. No.6 of 2026 allowing

an application filed bv the respondent No. 1/plaintiff for exempting

it from the mandatory pre-institution mcdiation requirement under

section 12A of The Commercial Courts Act, 20 I5 (CCA).

-

3

MB,J & GPK,J

Crp 315 2025

2. Thc p(:tltioncrs in the CRp:rrc thc defcnrla,: ,los. I ancl 3 i.r

thc Surt. Thc rcspondent No. I in the CRp rs rlt,, plaintiff. Thc

rcspondent Nos.2 to 15 are the defendant Nos.2. to 16 in thc

Suit. For convenience, the parties hcreinaftr:r ar,, rcfcrrcd to as

pcr Iheir posirion in rhe Suit.

3. The plzLintiff liled thc Commcrcial Suit (No.6 t I 2026) againsl

thc defendants for a Declaration in respet:t ol Shaleholclcrs,

Agrcements dated 28.O1.2022, 07.O9.2022, l::. ).j.2025 and

13.03.2025 oxecutcd betwcen the delcndants, ro Lold thcnt ;rs

invalid and inoperal.ive. The plaintiff claimed tllal tir

,

rights of the

plaintiff undcr thc Shareholders, Agreement datc, 06.O4.2OO7

u'ould continue to bind the defendarts. The plarnri I also pravcd

lor perpetual injunction rcstraining thc penn.l (ir.oL

I (tht. seconcl

Party to the Sharcholders, Agrecmcnt datecl Otr. ) 2007) lrom

acti'rg in vroLation oI thc shtrreholders' Agr( ( r.]rc.t cratcd

06.o4.2OO7 (,SHAl.

4. The plaintiff filcd t.A.No.64 of 2026 in thr: sai,l Suir seeking

excmption from the mandatory pre institutior nrcdiation

rcquirement under scction 12A ol thc CCA. The r

.ayer

in thc

plaintiffs application states rhat thc Injunctior Application

-,,/

4

I\48,J & GPK,]

Ctp_31,5 2026

contemplates urgent interim rclief and thc plaintiff u'ould suffer

irrcparable injury if thc relicf ol excmption is not granted.

5. By the impugned ordcr. the Commcrcial Court found that

the plaintiff had given sufficicnt cxplanzrtion as to why exemption

should be grantcd from the pre-litigation rnediation rcquirement

under section 12A of the CCA. The Conrmercial Cour[ also found

that the application /as justificd in view o[ thc urgency shown by

the plaintiff.

6. Learned Senior Counsel appcarirrg ior thc delendant Nos.1

and 3 submits that thc impugned ordcr fails to disclose the

reasons for cxempting thc plaintifl lrom the pre-litigation

mediation requircmenL under thc CCA. Scnior Counscl submits

that the Commercial Court dicl not ans\,cr the qLrcstion framed as

to why the intcrim application qualiliccl as one involving urgent

relicf notwithstanding the clclar in its lnstltution. It rs also

submitted that the dela,r, in filing thc Sr.rit s,ould bc latal to thc

plaintiffs cause sincc thc plaintifl was a\:ilrc ol-the changcs made

to the shareholding pattern at least from M:rrch/July 2025 as the

plaintiff had participatcd in negotiation s as well as in the

Extraordinary Gcncral Me eting }.tclcl on O'i .O7 .2O2r.

5

7. Learned Senior Counscl appearing for the plar

r( lcvant p:ir:rgraphs from thc impugned order to :l

Commercial Court has indicated the reasons

cxcmption frorn thc prc-litigation mediation reqult i,

Counsel placcs the relevant Clauses from thc

r\grccment daLcd 06.O4.2007 to submit rhar thr

Agreement has not been terminated titl date arr

thercof require the plaintiff to be put on notice ol r

the shareholding pattern of the parties thercto. )l

strbmits that thc urgcncy arises out of the lailure on

dcfendalt Nos.l ar-rd 3 to give any form o[ assrr

.,

RUSAL Transaction would not result in furtl'rc

plaintilfs sharcholding in thc petitioner No. 1.

MB,J & GPK,]

Crp_315_2026

trll'places th<r

hnri( that tl.rr.

li.rr granrinEl

ncr.lt. Scnior

Slrlrrcholdcrs

Sherrcholclers

thc Clauses

rv cl'ranges in

rrior-Counscl

hc part o[ the

r)cc that thc

dilu ting rhe

8 We har,c hcard the arguments put lorth b\. r:rrnr:d Scnior

Counsel appcaring on bchalf of the parties.

'lhc

Facts learlinq to filing o[ thc Commercial Suit

L The factual conspectus in the present casc i )r lmir-rarting in

the filing of the Commercial Suit is as follows:

c Oo 14.O2.2OO7; the Government of Ras Al Khaimah r rcrc(l inro a

M!'morandum of Understanding lvith the Governnlent of r,r hra pradesh

lo incorporatc an Indian Registered Limited Company for

.i .vr:loping

ar.r

6

Alumina and Aluminium Retinery and Smeltcr in Alldhra Pradcsh and for

long tcrm Bauxite supply by the Andhra Pradesh Mineral l)evelopmertt

Corporation Ltd., trom the Jarella deposrts Chilltapalli Nlirndal for thc usc

of rhe said ComPanY'

. On 23.03.2007; the petitloner No I $as rrrcorporared as ANRlli

Aluminium Limited pursuant to the NloU clatcd l'1'02 2007'

. On 06.04 2007; the plarntiff {Ras Al Khaimall lnvestmcrlt Authorit}')

entered into a Share Holdcrs' Agrcemcnt

(S1{Al u"rth the l)enna Groulr

(petitioner No.2 and respondent Nos'3 to 1O in the CRP/dcfcntlant

Nos.3

to 1I in the Suit) and incorporated the petitiorler No 1Comp'rrll

(Pionccr

AluminiumlndustriesLimited)aSa]ointventul(]be1\ecllthcparties.].hC

SHA is valid and operative aS on datc, Thc pctrritlr.rcr No,2 lS no longcr a

memberofthePenrraGroupbutStiLlrcmaillstlt).rlt\'totheSIIA

. On 13.03.2025; the petlttoner No l rn thc Cl<P (defendatlt No 1 in thc

Suit), the petitioner No'2 (clefendant No 3 in thc SuLtl' the Penna Group

(sans the respondent Nos

g and t0) and the othcr respondcrlLs cxccllted a

Shareholders' Agreement (RLiSAL SIIA) ancl ;r Share PLtrchirsc Ailrecmclrt

(RUSAL SPA) r"'ith the rcspondetrt No.L5 (Al Pltts a stLbsiciiarr of United

ComPany, ITUSAL) The plaintiff $irs not a parl to ttlc IIUSAL SH'{ arrd

RUSAL SPA and claims that the sanrc hacl lrcerr execlttc(l \ithout lhe

plaintiffs kllowledge/conscnt

and illso itl Llrcilt h ol lilc Sl{A c{ccLlLcd oll

06.01.2007

.

MA,J & G PK,J

crp_315 2026

of the RUSi\L'lransactron

by u,ay of an announcemcnt

(hich stated lh'rt thc Perln'r Group (sans the

On 14.03.2025; the plaintiff becarnc anart:

t- ':ww:r:,-'l

...

7

MB,J & GPK,J

Ct p

_315 _2026

respondenr Nos.9 and l0J along with the KCAp Groul tlte respondent

Nos. 12 an(l 13) had agreed to sell shares of upto 5Or,;, il.rhe pelilroner

No. l s sharclrolclrng rn thrcc Closings/stages to Al plus I l)on(icnt N() iJl

:rncl thaL aftcr completron of the acquisition, the petitt r .r No_l rroulcl

ol)craLte as ;t lornt venturc bcttveen the partics to the RUSi I

.l.ransacti()n.

. On 12 O(t.2O25: thc plaintiff received nottcc of thc I

.litioner

No.1.s

I')xtraordinan, Gencral Meeting {ECM) schcduled to xr I tLD ON

07.O7.2025 itter elia for seeking approval of the Sha r tolders o[ the

l)elitroner No.I to adopt the restated Articles of Asrr

.ration

oI the

I)ctrtioller lJo. I that rncorporated provisions of the I?ljrj L SHA \vltich

rrould be cffcctivc upon completion of the First Closinrl cl the RUS,\1,

'l

r ansaction as defincd rn the RUSAL SpA.

. On O3.07 20251 Lhe plaintift requested copics of or in I h

.

altenlativ., a

phvsical rnsp<,ction of the RUSAL SHA and RUSAL SpA l.he petitioncr

No. I ]to$,evcr, did not provide copies of the requested .1,), Llments.

,t.[]e

Ilainliff clairns that it .as allorved a partial and rcstricted i r pectron ol r lre

lltlSAi- StlA ar)d RUSAI. SI,A on 05.07.2025 for only rrvo lrc L s.

o Ot't 07.O7 .2025: f hc resteted Articlcs of Association ol he petitioncr

r.l rvas a(lopted at tltc petitiolter No. l,s EGM as a resL lr oi \ltich rlte

lltlS.\l- SHA rvas incorporatccl into the petitioncr No. I j Articlcs ol.

.\ssociation. 'l'hc plair.rtiff had voted against this Resolutio11 the E]ONl.

. On O5.0().2025; the plaintiff came to know that AL l,lL ;,/respondcrtr

No l5 trad bccome a 267o shareholder in the petitioner No. I

-

-

8

MB,] & GPK,J

Crp_315_2025

. On 09,10.2025t the plarnnf sought arl undertakng lroln t]re I'cnrla

Group that it shall not engage in any further stages o[ the RUSAL

Transaction. The Penna Group horvever did not provide thc undertaking.

. On 29.11.2025; the plaintrff sought an unequitocztl undcrtakir']g bl

07.12.2025 lrom the petitioner No.1 and czrch of its shirreholders thirt

nerther the petitioncr No.1 nor any ofthe partics to ttre RUSr\L SllA zrrrd

SPA would take any lurther steps rn relation to the RUSAL Transaction.

The petitioner No. I did not provide the said undertaking.

. On 05.01.2026; the petiLioncr Nos. I ilnd 2 cxpresslt rcfused to

provide the undertaking as requested b1'the plaintifi.

. On 19.01.2026; the plaintrff filcd a Commercia! Stril,/COS No.o6 ot

2026 on the apprehended urgenc] and inulrinenl har-rn irr r.terr of tlre

furthcr Closings of the RUSAI. 'l'ransactiolt The plarntrlt also filed an

inJunction application (1.A.No.34 ot 20261 and trn ittterirn appltcalton

(1.A.No.64 of 2026il fu exemption from compliancc rvith scctiott I2--1 of tlle

CCA,

. On 28.O1.2O26; thc Commcrcial Court p.lsscd Lhe rmPugnr:d order ir.t

l.A No.64 ol 2026, granting cxernptron to lhc J)laintrif

'l

hrs order lorttrs

the subject matter of the prcsent CRP.

10. The above timelinc has been sct out in sornc detail li.rr

understanding the anxiety projccted b)' tl'rc pli'rinLill in thc

Commcrcial Court.

_,-qF:-. _ -.,r.!r",ff

L:ffi;jm:Bil "ffi*--ffi"'nt-'q&.

-'*.:a

9

MB,] & GPK,.]

Crp_315 2026

I 1. Thc conLcntion of thc petitioners in th,' CRP/delcndant

Nos. I and 3 in thc Suit is that the admitted eLcts bclicrl thc

Ll rgenc-\: ploiccted b-1' thc plaintrff, namely, that l're plaintill u'as

awarc of thc RUSAL Transaction from 14.03.202: i.c., 10 rnonths

prior to lrling of the Commercial Suit. i essel'rce, the

pcti tioners / rlc fendan t Nos.1 and 3 seek to argue hat the plaintilf

did not hirve anl case for urgent interim relic' and tvas hcncc

bound by tlrc mandate o[ section 12A of the ( ( A in respect o[

Pre litigation Mediation.

12. We ir rc horvevcr constrained to disagrce u'i .

sincc thc scqucncc of events placed in the fori:r

,,r,ould 5lorv that the plaintiff's knowledge

'l'ransactiorr remaincd partial and incomplete I

C<rmmcrcirrl Suit in.J:rnuary 2026. ln fact, the ;;l:

harve been pushed to precipitating the state of afLl

March 20.15 (execution of the RUSAL Transar

plaintiil is not a part]') to November 2025 throul

plerintifl u,:rs kcpl in limbo on the status of the RL S

Thc plantrli claims that a physical inspection

()l

allowcd to l)e undcrtaken by it in July 202i

restricted irnd only lasted for a span of two hours

thc petitioncrs

oing par:rgraph

rf the RUSAL

l1 flling ol the

n ti[f appe :r,rs tc)

rs existing lrom

ion u.hc rc thc:

hout rvh ich thc

AL Transactiot't.

hc Transaction

. W S SCVCTCIY

rhich prevented

I

-r/'

10

MB,] & GPK,J

Crp 315_2026

an effective understanding of the Transaction. The pctitionel' No. 1

also refused to provide copies of the Transaction to the plaintilf.

13. The plaintitls lack of effective knowledge of the Transaction

lvas aggravated by the petitioner No.1 as well as the Penna Group's

rcfusal to offer any formal undertaking of not facilitating any

further steps in relation to the RUSAL Transaclion. The pctitioners

exprcssly refused to provide any such undertaking (as requested

b-i. the plaintiff) as late as on 15.01.2026. Thc petitioners'

disrcgard and refusal of the plaintiff's request for ar undertaking

assumes signihcance since the plaintiff claims that furthcr stcps

taken in the RUSAL Transaction would be in brcach of the

plaintifls rights under the SHA dated 06.04.2007-14. The plaintifl"s apprehension with regard to the ITUSAL

Transaction is based on the contractual protection that the

plaintilf is entitled to by $'ay of the SHA ol 06.04.2007 inclucling

inter alia that any change in the petitioner No.1's Sharcholding

u'ould require the approval of rhe plainrilf as u'ell as titc Pctlna

Group and that there is a restriction on the transfer of thc

sharcholding of the plaintiff or the Penna Group in the petitioncr

No- 1 without the written consent of the other shareholdcr' Under

the SHA, the plaintilf also has a right to being first offered an1'

,','c'''-' -Ertr! -. "".re--

."t|iia-t

'*-?l

11

IVlB,J & GPK,]

Crp_315,2026

Shareholding proposed to be sold to a third parrl . The plaintifl

further claims that the SHA dated o6.04.200? has not been

terminated and is valid, operative and binding on the parties till

datc. Thercfore, the pctitloncrs'contcntion of a stlr : claim in vierv

ol the plaintiff's awarerlcss of thc RUSAI-'lransac iln from I\4arch

2025 is an over sinrplihcation of the lacts and he underlying

urgency. What rrltimately counts and was held r favour of the

plaintiff is that the ptaintilf was forced to remain gnorant of the

polential dilution of its rights and Shareholding r nder the SHA

dated O6.04.2007 from March 2025 till rhe iiling of t rc Commercial

Suit in January 2026.

15. The vulnerabilitr, of the plaintiff,s position vould also be

reinforced bv the fact that the plaintiff was the onlr. jhareholder

of

the petitioncr No.l and not a party to the RUSAL Tre nsaction. The

plaintifl also claims Ll-rat Lhe RUSAL Trarsactior was exccutecl

u'ithout the plaintill's knorvledge or consent and ir.r breach of the

Articles of the SHA dated 06.04.2007.

16. The last trigger lor filing the Suit was the peti,i rners,express

refusal on Or.O1.2026 to provide the undertaking

. ,ith rcgard to

the petitioners not taking any steps in relation 1r thc RUSAL

Transaction, as requcsted by the plaintiff. Cot trarv to the

-xlKr I ----:x ..::*:-{:l

1,2

MB,I & GP(,]

Crp 31.5_2026

contention that the time[ne shou]d be construed against thc

plaintiff to the extent of denying the plaintift urgent interim relief,

we hnd that the plaintifl required urgent interirn proteclion in vieu,

of the petitioncrs and the defendants closing ranks for keeping rhe

plaintilf in the dark from March 2025 to J anuary 2026.

17. FurLhcr, it is worth mentioning that thc

petitioners

/ defen dants did not voluntarily disclose the information

urith regard to the Transaction to the plaintiff and the information

was disclosed in driblets- The plaintiff also stumbled upon the

information perchance and had Lo wrest knowledge of the

Transaction from sporadic public announcements.

18. We rvish to make it clear at this juncture that we have nol

expresscd any opinion on thc mcrits of the rnjunction application

filcd by the plaintiff; that is for the Trial Court to adjudicate upon.

The onty issue r,",hich falls before us is whether the Trial Court

committed an error in accepting the plaintiff's case ol urgencl,and

cxempting rt from Pre-litigation Mediation. In this context, wc

must also note that grant of exemption from the mandate o[

section 12A of the CCA to the plaintiff does not amount to a

decision on thc rival claims. The Trial Court only permitted the

plaintiff to movc its I.A. tor interim injunction without having to

\-

13

MB,J & GPK,J

Ctp_315 2026

exhzrusl the remedy of Mediation. The impugned c rder does not

translate to any prcjuclice to thc pctitioners. On tI

the plaintiff's case of imminent tl'rreat by the o

RUSAL Transaction r.vould be seL at naught if the plrr

consigned to Mediation. [-Ience, thc Trial Court corr

the test of balancc of convenience Lo the facts brousL

c other hand,

rsings of the

n tiff was to be

'r:tly exercised

', be[ore it.

Section 124 ol Lhe Commercial Courts Act2015

19. Section l2A of The Commcrcial Courts Act

makes it mandatory for a plaintiff to a SuiL to exhat

of Mediation before hling the Suit where thc Suit dc

urgcnt intcrim relief uncler the provisions of the Co

to whether the plaintiff rcquires urgent inte; i

consequent cxcmption from the maldatc of

MediaLion and Scttlcmcnt' under section 12A of l

hence require a preliminary assessment by the Cot

in eacl-r case.

201s (ccA)

st the remedy

:s not require

.. The test as

n relief and

'Pre litigation

e CCA u,ould

rt of the lacts

20. Scction 12,A ol the CCA mandates Pre-Litiga ion Mcdiation

and Scttlement. The earlier avatar of 'Pre-lnstituti: r Mediation...'

was substituted by the present form of 'Pre-Litigatir r Mediation...'

pursuant to The Mediation Act, 2023. The effecL c' section 12A,

-

,/

14

MB,J & GPK,J

Cry-3\5 2026

post- sub stitution, howcvcr rcmains the same. Seclion 12A (1)

contains an express bar on the institution of Commercial Suits

without first exhau sting thc remcdy of mediation where the Suit

does nol conte mplate anv urgent interim relicl undcr the CCA.

Thc othcr Sub-sections o[ scction l2A are not relevant for the

present adjudication.

21. The import ol section 12A is thus; a plaintiff sccking to

institute a Suit ttndcr the CCA can only file the Suit upon

cstablishing that the Suit requires urgent interim rclief ll the

plaintiff fails on this score, that is, if the Court rejects the

contention ot the plaintiff, the plaintilf shall hrst cxplore mediation

as provided under section l2A (21 and (3). The nccessity of seeking

Ieave of the Court or filing an application for excmption on account

of urgent interim relicf has bcen hetd to not be a conditiou under

section 12A of thc CCA in Ycnnini Manohar u. T K D Keerthtt The

pleadings in the plaint and the oral submissions u'ould be

sufl-rcicnt to dccidc thc issuc as to rvhether the plaintifl can be

exempted from t]re mandate of pr-e-litigation mediation The

decision as to r.r,hethel- thc plaintiff is required to comply with the

mandate under scction 12A must be seen at the point of

institution of the Suit.

'1zoza1 s scc 8ts

15

MB,] & GPK,J

Crp-315_2026

lhePurposeof sect 12A olthe CCA

lon

ls (:tOParalyse a

dcscrvinCASCfor Iniunction

22It is imporl.lnt to bcar in mind that thc Lr lislarive purpose

behind section l2A of the CCA is not to thu.rr r

but to give a purposefuJ push to the petrtics to cr;lorc mediation

before the disputc snowbalrs into litigation belbr:: tr-rc court. In

other words, sectiolt l24 does not contcmplate pi r tlysis of the 1js

but filters suits rcquiring the Court to intervenc al ( pzrss (or cleny)

protection orders rvhilc wceding out non-urgenI srtrt i.

anxrou s neerl to obtain interim protection again.;r

23. Hence, a clccision as to whether a plainti

I

cxcmption front prc litigatir.,n mediation must be Ilr r

r.r,here the plaintiff shows that the suit wotrl I

infructuous if thc plaintiff is made to rvait lor l2l.

exhaust the rcrnecl-y of mediation. Where thr

contested, the COrtrI rnust asscss the cclmpe[rng sr

strive for balancc l)et\vccn the plaintiff,s need for r

relief and an opportunity being given to the parties I

dispute throrrgh mccliation. Needless to say, a clr:lc

use section 12A of the CCA to nip the suit in the .;

the plainriffs

thc clefendant,

is entitled to

le at the stage

be rendcred

+ 60 days to

c'xcntption is

lnissions and

rgcnt interim

. rcsolve their

) d:ut t caltnot

rd ol foil the

w

16

MB,J & GPK,I

Crp 315 2026

plaintiff's need for inlerim protection. The above discussion must

be contextualized in the present facts.

24. Section 12A ol thc CCA cannot be used to cold storage

urgent claims. Thc admitted facts do not reflec[ any somnolcnce or

lack of diligence on thc part of the plaintiff. The plaintiff in fact

tried its best to be in thc knorv of the RUSAL Transaction and to

take steps against it in order to protect its rights as a Shareholder

in the Shareholders' Agreement datcd 06.O4.2OO7. Section 12A.

cannot be interpreted as a stranglehold for a plaintifl in a

Commercial Suit, to impede the momentum in the suit where

timcly-relief is needed.

Can the lmpuened Ordcr be laultcd on Facts and the Law?

25. Thc Commercial Court granted exemplion to the plaintiff to

fllc the injunction petition u,ithout cxhausting the remedy of

mediation. The impugned ordcr was passr:d on contest. It is also

rclevant that the petitioners had filed an carlier CRP (No-173 ol

2026) rn this Court from an order datcd 19.01.2026 granting

cxemption to the plaintiff under section 12A of the CCA. The said

CRP was disposed of by this Court on 2O-O1 2026 by remanding

the matter to thc Commercial Court for a fresh decision The

T1-.:r1t

-!=!

1,1

.iJl;1?-!lld

matter was remandcd on the ground that the i npugned order

dated 19.01.2026 dtcl not reflect the reasons lt - granting the

excmption. The Commercial Court rvas also direc r d to dispose of

the IA r,r'ithin a certain time frame on the Court nct rg the urgency

shown on bchalf of the plaintifl. The submission n . de on behalf of

the petitioners had also been recordcd, namely, thi t there was no

immediate threat to the plaintiff being prejudiccd n tcrms of its

shareholdrng. Thc present CRp arises from the o: der passed by

the Commercial Court pursuartt to the remand.

26. The impugncd ordcr identifics that the scr

under section 72A ol the CCA is limited to u.l r

contemplates urgent intcrim relief. The Conr

discusses the implication of section 12,A along s, t

correctly hold that the Court must not look into li

(

request for relief. The Court also takes into accor.rr

submissions of the pe titioners/ defcndar-rt Nos. 1 ir

zrssessmenL. 'I'he Commcrcial Court noted that ll (

notice of the RUSAL 'I'ransaction in March, 202.i.

relcvant agrcements in Jul_v, 2025 and attender,

Extraordinary General Mee ting of the petitio:t

incorporating the RUSAL Shareholders, Agreement I r r

of Association of the petitioner No. I on OT.O.l

re of enquiry

ther the Suit

-rercial

Court

r case law to

merits of the

L the relcrvant

rd 3 for this

plaintift had

nspected thc

voted in the

rr No. I lor

c the Articles

2025. Thc

. :

'::.l.lXT:;:.

':;:.;::*..#1:iY Y:mlre:*x s:l

\

18

M8,,I & GP(,J

Ctp 315 _2026

Commercial Court also rccorded that the RU SAL tran sactlon

threatencd to bring a third party into tl-re plaintifls corporatc

governance structure erncl the defendants had already facilitated

the First Closing of tl'rc serid Lransaction and hence thc plainlifl

would suffcr an immincnt harm lrom further dilution of its sharcs'

27. The same sequence of events given in thc above paragraphs

weighed with the Commcrcial Court, that is, the plaintiff faced a

rcal risk duc Lo the petitioncrs/defendants'continued silence/

refusal to provide an unequivocal urrdertaking that nonc of the

parties to thc RUSAL SI{A and SPA would facilitate thc Second

Closing. The Court recorded its satisfaction of the reasons given by

the plaintilf for urgent intcrim relicl in the form of the injunction

application.

28. We have found that the sequence of cvcnts lcading up to the

hling of the Commercial Suit betrayed a conspicuous lack of

transparenc)' on the part ol the petitioncrs/dcfendants in keeping

the plaintiU assured of its rights undcr the StiA datcd 06 04 '2007 '

The continucd absence ol any effcctivc disclt.rsure of the terms of

the RUSAL Transac[ion till as late as on O5.01.2026 resulted in the

plaintiff filing the Comrnercial Suit. ln [act, thc last and immediate

trigger for filing the Suil was the petitioners'rcfusal on 05 01 2026

-

19

MB,J & GPK,]

Crp-315 2026

to provide the undertaking as rcquested by Lhe pLl irtiff. Hcnce. we

do not find that the Commercial Court misdirc,c t :d itself on the

rclevant facts for granting cxemption to the plarnti

.l

)9. 'lhe lat, on tl're subject, that is, sectlon

r-cinlorccs

t he n.r:rndatory natu rc ol- pre_litigat io

.t

suits u,hich do not contemplatc urgent interim rcli(.1

Corlrl has gone to the extent of holding that an1. St

violation of thc mandate would be visited rvith rc,

tunclcr Order VII Rulc 11 of Thc Code of Civil pr

r

The impugned order does not disclose aly lzrrL

rcasons given with regard to thc statutory man(liL

drvclls on the relcvant facts at Iength before conc.l.

pl:lintiff should be r:xcmpted from the pre litigation r

3rl

t of thc CCA,

medi:rtion for

The Suprcme

it insti(utcd in

ction of plalnt

:cdurc, 190112.

:-lines in thc

: and in fact,

ding thar the

andatc.

Wc hcnce ans,er the captioned qucstion in tlre negativc

Thc lmpugned OrderrsnotOpaque

3 I . The printarl submissior.r macle on lr,.l alf ol the

pctitioners/dcfendant

Nos. 1 and 3 is that no r:lc rr reason is

disccrnablc from the impugned order for cxemprin! thc plaintiff

fro m pre-institu tion mediation.

'

Patrl Automarion (p) Ltd. v. Rakheja Engineers (p) Ltd., (2022) 10 SCC 1

I

-

20

MB,J & GPK,J

Crp,315_2026

32. We may also add that therc cannot bc any unilorm standard

ofjudicial reasoning. The standard depends upon the clarity with

rvhich reasons arc recorded, coupled rvith the case of articulation'

Some orders may bc less clear than othcrs in terms of cohcsion

and expression. Such orders hon'ever cannot bc described as non-

transpzlrent in terms of the reasons given. 'l'he prescnt impugned

order falls in this category. While the reasons stated mury have to

be culted from various paragraphs, iL cannot bc said tllat the order

is an unreasoned order. There is a discerniblc diflcrence betwccn

a non-speaking order and onc w'hich reflects Lhe Court having

applied its mind to the facts and material belore it The impugned

order cannot be described as opaque and unreasoned' What

mattcrs in the end is that the Commercial CourL apprcciated the

plaintiff"s continuing seuse of urgency and thc nccd lor urgent

rclief in vier,", of the imminent threat of thc PCtilioners/dclenclants

procceding with the RUSAL Transaction Vicrr ed in that light, the

Commerctal Court gerve due rveight:rge to the proximate thrcat of

the plaintiff suffering iLn irreversiblc injurf il the plaintiff u'erc to

be consigned to mediation.

---

21

Main taina bil hc Civil Revision Petitionitv ol t

MB,J & GPK,J

Crp_315-2026

Court

33. It is norv judicially settled that the prohilri ion contained in

scction fl o[ tl're CCA in enLerta]ning any Civil Rr r. sion Application

interlocutory order ol a (.( mmercial

fetter the Constitutional .:

xr.ers ol aHigh

Court und(_.r Articlc 227 of the Constitution of IncliThc power of

227 ol |ne

Constitution mu st be cxcrcised within sc)l i nposed limits,

re:itricting lho interference to cases only u,herc here has been

miscarriagc of justicc or fragrant abuse of law.

,l

I : bar contained

in scction 8 ol the CCA should be given duc u,eigh i ge, partrcularly

whcre the aegricved party has failed to justjf\, )ot taking the

rit:ltutory rccourse provided under section 13(l or {lA) of the

CC,,\T,

.'i4. 'lhus.

tl.rough thc prescnt CRp is maintainalrl , 11,s are of lhe

c.. sidererl

'icr,r,.

that the petitioners havc not mad I ()ut a c,sc for

ir.ltc|vcntion on anr. oI the recognized grounds as st,r ecl abovc.

'

5tatc of Gujarat v Union of lndia, 2O1g SCC OnLine Guj 1515-

The 5tate oi Telangana v. Siddartha Constructions, 2Oi4 SCC OnLine TS 30( t

oI pctitiolt lront any

rr.ould not zrpply to or

srrpcrintendencc of a High Court under Ar t r le

22

MB,J & GPK,J

Crp_315 2025

Conclusion

35. The petitioners have not shou'n any lactual or lcgal crack in

thc impugned order which vvould permit the High Courl to pull up

thc Commcrcial Court within the framework ol its jurisdiction. [n

cssence, the impugned order correctly rccognizes an clement of

justifiability in the urgency expressed on behalf of thc plaintiff.

The Commercial Court has applied thc corrcct legal standard as

discussed in lhe cases and records a clcar frnding rn granting

cxemption to the plaintiff. The fact that the parties failed to

amicably settle the dispute prior to institution of the Commercial

Suit may also have weighed rvith the Commcrcial Court in granting

the cxemption. There are other rcasons recordcd b1' the

Commercial Court for granting the exemption evcn if Lhc partics'

lailed attempt for settlement is discounted.

36. Thus, wc conclude tl'rat the Commcrcial Cotlrt granted

exemption under section l2A o[ thc CCA on a rcasonable

appreciation of the lacts brought bclcrre it- Morcover. the

petitioners cannot be permitted to in flatc the eficct of thc

impugned order to a decision on the rival claims of I hc parlies.

The effect of the impugned ordcr should bc seen as it is, that is,

plaintiff being granted leave to seek interim protection against thc

\

!I

23

MB,J & GPK,]

Crp 315 2026

peti tioners/ dcfendants. The petitioncrs cannot r-.; ser:rron 12A as

a tool to makc the injunction petition irrelevant ), cfflux of time.

Section 12r does not contcmplate arm_twisting br a dr:fendant to

shove thc pl:rrntiffs nccd [or interim protection to t] c bzlckburner.

37 [[ is rrlso cvident lront the impugr-red orde]- t rat the learncd

Commcrcial Court Juclgc cxercised his discretior b:rscd on thc

rek:vanr matcrial in granting the exemption. We hr tcc <lo not find

anv compclling ground to interfere with that discre r ;n.

38. \,Vhilc scctior-r 12A of the CCA gives arr imperr s to mediation

bcfr;rc the p;|-l ics contc to the Court, it does not :: rrhibit a party

from non-ir.r st rtu tional mcdiation as a substitute for

,, pre_litigation

I\4ccliation' bClirr.e institution of thc Suit.

39. C.R.P No 3lS of 2026 is found to be devoi(l r I rncrir and is

arccordingl-,,, disrnisscd, All the pending applicatrcL s in the Civil

Ikrr, ision Pct lron errc accorrlingly dismissed. Thr.r. .

shall bc r.ro

ordr:r as Lo C()sl s :;D/- MOMINA MEHAR

ASI ISTANT REG.ISTRAh'

,,?

SECTION OFFICER

//TRUE COPY//

one Fair copy to the Hon,ble Q. JUST|CE MOUSHUMI

BHATTACHA t

,A

(For His Lordships kind perusal)

&

One Fair Copy to the Hon,ble SRt JUSTTCE GAD| PRAVEEN

KUMAR

(For His Lordships kind perusal)

To,

1. The Principal Special Court in the Cadre of District ,J rdge for Trial and

Disposal of Commercial Disputes at Hyderabad.

2. 11 LR Copies

3. The Under Secretary, Union of lndia, Ministry of Law, Jusri e and Company

Affairs, New Delhi

I

!

" ::-:.^- --;Y#,"-=.

\

4. The Secretary, Advocates Association Llbrary, High Court for the State of

Telangana, High Court Buildings at Hyderabad

5. One CC to Ms. Kopal Sharraf, Advocate [OPUC]

6. One CC to Sri G Vamshi Krishna, Advocate [OPUC]

7 Two CD Copies

I

ryy

:'. a. r ' .)r:;':.4:.:: i

' {,.'..i .'

HIGH COURT

DATED: 1110212026

ORDER

CRP.No.315 ot 2026

DISMISSING THE CRP WITHOUT COSTS

--a'

-)

()

r1

(;)

cB

t$t

i

!

t

I

I

i

I

!

I

r

I

:

t

l

I

:

:

I

)

\3

i6

,TC

\

\

.J.

!

I