Mediation cannot be thrust upon unwilling party: Bombay High Court in Kalyani Group family feud

Mediation cannot be thrust on an unwilling party, the Bombay High Court recently observed while refusing to refer a high‑profile family property dispute involving Bharart Forge's managing director Babasaheb Kalyani to mediation [Babasaheb Kalyan v. Sugandha Hiremath]

Justice Rajesh S Patil dismissed the plea moved by Kalyani’s sister Sugandha Hiremath and her husband Jaidev Hiremath seeking mediation for the dispute. 

"The Mediation Act, 2023 does not provide for any mandatory mediation nor does it confer any power on the court to order mediation without consent of all parties," Justice Patil held. 

Hiremath filed a suit in 2023 for specific performance of a 1994 family arrangement instituted by her husband and her.

The suit arose out of a long‑running family dispute with earlier settlement efforts before the Supreme Court and the Pune District Court having already failed.

On March 27, the High Court suggested that the parties should consider mediation. 

Senior advocate Janak Dwarkadas for Hiremath argued that the court should refer the matter to mediation even if there was only a one percent chance of a successful resolution.

However, Senior Advocate Virendra Tulzapurkar, appearing for Kalyani, vehemently opposed the move. He pointed out that previous mediation attempts including one directed by the Supreme Court in 2018 had already failed.

Further, he argued that whenever the Court suggested mediation, news reports were immediately published at the behest of Hiremaths to embarrass Kalyani and trigger panic among his investors. 

He also highlighted Hiremath’s failure to provide a concrete settlement proposal despite the Court granting them a dedicated 12-day window to exchange offers without prejudice.

In the 19-page judgment, Justice Patil noted that unlike the Commercial Courts Act of 2015, which explicitly mandates pre-litigation mediation, the Mediation Act deliberately keeps civil mediation voluntary and consensual.

The Court referred to a Supreme Court judgment and reiterated that mediation cannot be thrust upon a party actively resisting it. 

The judge observed that a court should generally only bridge the gap when parties have exchanged close offers, a scenario completely absent in the present case.

Hence, the High Court firmly rejected the mediation request and directed the matter to proceed on its legal merits.

Dwarkadas briefed by advocates Kunal Dwarkadas, Rahul Dwarkadas, Sukhada Wagle, Shireen Mistri and Aniket Kharote from RJD and Partners appeared for Hiremath.

Tulzapurkar and Senior Advocate Simil Purohit along with advocates Farhan Khan, Munaf Virjee, Swapnil Khatri and Shruti Salian briefed by AMR Law appeared for Kalyani. 

Advocates Yash Chokshi, Taha Mirza and Kanika Sharma briefed by Khaitan & Co appeared for Kalyani Investment Co, BF Investment and Amit Kalyani.

Advocates Prabhav Shroff, Aditi Bhansali and Deepti Prabhu briefed by AZB and Partners appeared for Kalyani’s brother Gaurishankar Kalyani and his wife. 

Advocates Kavita Sharma and Harsh Shah briefed by Ganesh and Co. appeared for Hikal Ltd. 

[Read Judgment]