The Case Comment: A Worked Example from Start to Finish

Length: 1,500 to 3,000 words in most Indian journals. A case comment is short by design.

A worked example: a full comment, from heading to conclusion

The judgment is M/s Patil Automation Private Limited v. Rakheja Engineers Private Limited, decided 17 August 2022, K.M. Joseph J with Hrishikesh Roy J. The law is in chapter 610; read that first if section 12A is not familiar.

Facts

Commercial suits were instituted under the Commercial Courts Act 2015 without the plaintiffs having first gone through the pre-institution mediation required by section 12A. No urgent interim relief was contemplated, so the exemption in the section did not apply.

Note what has been left out: the parties' businesses, the amounts, the procedural history below. None of it changes the answer. That is what "material facts" means.

Issue

Two questions, and the second only arises if the first is answered one way:

1. Is section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act 2015 mandatory or directory?
2. If mandatory, may a plaint filed in breach of it be rejected under Order VII rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure?

Held

The Court declared section 12A mandatory, held that any suit instituted in violation of it must be visited with rejection of the plaint under Order VII rule 11, and held that this power may be exercised even suo motu by the court, that is, without the defendant applying for it.

The declaration was made effective from 20 August 2022, prospectively, so that stakeholders would become sufficiently informed, with directions covering plaints already rejected and cases where a rejection had already been acted upon by filing a fresh suit.

What is ratio here, and what is not

Apply the subtraction test.

Ratio. That section 12A is mandatory, and that breach attracts rejection under Order VII rule 11. Remove either and the suits could not have been dealt with as they were. Both are binding.

Also ratio, though it looks like a detail. That the power may be exercised suo motu. The Court needed it: a rule that only operates when a defendant objects would let the section be waived by silence, which would make it directory in substance.

Obiter, or close to it. The Court's observations on the object of the Commercial Courts Act, on delays in commercial litigation, and on the wider policy of mediation. Remove them and the holding stands.

Not ratio at all: the transitional directions. The prospective date and the treatment of pending matters are directions under the Court's own powers to do complete justice. They are binding as orders, but they are not a proposition of law that a later court applies to a different statute.

Distinguishing the third and fourth categories is the part that separates a good comment from an average one.

Analysis

Was the reasoning sound? The core of it was: the section says a suit "shall not be instituted" unless the plaintiff exhausts pre-institution mediation, and a provision framed as a prohibition on institution cannot sensibly be directory, because there is nothing left for it to direct once the suit is in. That is a strong argument, and it explains why the Court did not stop at declaring the section mandatory but went on to supply the consequence: a mandatory provision with no consequence for breach is a request.

Does it fit what came before? It fits Afcons Infrastructure Ltd v. Cherian Varkey Construction Co (P) Ltd, chapter 600, where the Court read section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure practically rather than literally in order to make court-referred alternative dispute resolution work. Both judgments treat the statutory push towards settlement as something to be given real effect. The difference is instructive and worth a paragraph in any comment: section 89 refers a case that is already in court, while section 12A stops it getting there. A comment that notices this is doing more than reporting.

Was there a weaker point? Yes, and a comment should say so. Order VII rule 11 lists the grounds on which a plaint is rejected, and "no pre-institution mediation" is not among them in terms; the Court reached it through rule 11(d), suits barred by law. That is orthodox, but it is an interpretive step and not a reading off the page, and the honest comment says so rather than presenting the conclusion as inevitable.

Did the Court answer the question it set itself? Yes, and it went one step further by adding the suo motu power, which was not strictly forced by the facts, since the point had been raised. A critical comment could argue that this went beyond what was needed. The answer is that without it the holding is unstable, which is the better view, but the point is arguable, and an arguable point is exactly what a comment is for.

The prospective declaration. The Court's own reason was that stakeholders should become sufficiently informed. A comment can note the tension: if the section was mandatory all along, it was mandatory before 20 August 2022 too, and prospective overruling is usually reserved for a change in the law rather than a declaration of what it always meant. The Court's answer is practical, that hundreds of suits filed on the earlier understanding should not fail. State the tension, state the answer, and let the reader judge. That is better than pretending there is no tension.

Consequences

• For plaintiffs. Pre-institution mediation is now a condition precedent to a commercial suit, and skipping it is not curable by mediating later.
• For defendants. No application is needed. The court may reject the plaint on its own.
• For the courts. A screening duty at the point of filing.
• For mediation generally. This is the one place in Indian law where mediation is compulsory before suit, and after this judgment it is compulsory in fact and not only on paper. That is the reason a book about alternative dispute resolution cares about a judgment on Order VII rule 11.

Conclusion

Patil Automation converts section 12A from an exhortation into a gate. The reasoning is sound at its core, the rejection route required an interpretive step the Court could have justified more fully, and the prospective effect sits uneasily with the declaration that the section was always mandatory. The practical result is that pre-institution mediation is, for the first time in Indian law, a condition a commercial plaintiff cannot avoid.

Comparing the two forms

What beginners get wrong

Retelling the whole judgment. The court has already written it, and at greater length.

Every fact included. Material facts only.

The issue stated as a topic. "This case is about mediation" is not an issue. "Is section 12A mandatory?" is.

Treating the headnote as the ratio. It is a reporter's compression.

Praising the judgment throughout. A comment that agrees with everything has not tested anything. Find the weakest step and say why it is the weakest, even if you agree with the result.

No consequences section. The reader wants to know what changes.

Quick revision

• A comment does four things: report, separate ratio from obiter, evaluate, state consequences.
• Ratio is what the decision rests on and binds under Article 141; obiter is what the court said but did not need. Test by subtraction.
• Shape: heading, material facts, issue as a question, held and reasoning, analysis, consequences, conclusion.
• Material facts are the ones that, if changed, would change the outcome.
• In Patil Automation the ratio is that section 12A is mandatory, that breach means rejection under Order VII rule 11, and that the power is exercisable suo motu; the transitional directions are not a proposition of law.
• Length is short: 1,500 to 3,000 words.

Test yourself

1. How do you tell ratio from obiter? By subtraction. Remove the proposition from the judgment and ask whether the court could still have reached the same result. If it could, the proposition is obiter. If the result collapses without it, it is ratio, and it binds under Article 141.

2. Which facts belong in a case comment? Only the material facts, meaning those that the decision turns on. The test is whether changing the fact would change the outcome. Parties' identities, amounts and procedural history usually fail that test and should be left out.

3. State the ratio of Patil Automation. That section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act 2015 is mandatory; that a suit instituted in violation of it must be visited with rejection of the plaint under Order VII rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure; and that this power may be exercised even suo motu by the court.

4. Why is the Court's prospective declaration in Patil Automation not part of the ratio? Because it is a transitional direction about how the holding is to operate, made so that stakeholders should become sufficiently informed. It binds as an order but is not a proposition of law that a later court would apply to a different statute. The proposition of law is that the section is mandatory and that breach attracts rejection.

5. What separates a case comment from a case summary? Evaluation. A summary reports the decision. A comment additionally identifies which part binds, tests whether the reasoning proves what it claims, places the decision against the earlier authorities, names the weakest step in the reasoning even where the result is accepted, and states what changes as a result.