Mediation requires the agreement of both parties and cannot be forced on either one, according to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court highlighted that mediation should only occur with the agreement of both parties and cannot be forced on anyone. This point was made in Civil Appeals that raised important questions about the respect and authority of the High Court. The main concern was whether the High Court should be lenient in cases involving its mandamus orders. The Appeals contested an Interlocutory Order and ongoing Contempt Petitions in the High Court. Justices B.R. Gavai and Augustine George Masih stated, “It is important to note that mediation must be agreed upon by both parties. It cannot be imposed on either side. In this case, despite the objections from the appellants’ counsel, the High Court referred the matter to mediation based solely on the Advocate General’s statement that the State was willing to offer an alternative piece of land. We firmly believe that this approach by the Division Bench was legally unsound.” The Bench emphasized that the law’s authority demands compliance with the High Court’s orders under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, especially when the Supreme Court has not intervened.
Senior Advocate Nalin Kohli represented the Appellants, while Advocates Madhumita Bhattacharjee and Kartikeya Bhatt represented the Respondents. The Appellants received a piece of land from the Housing Infrastructure Development Corporation (HIDCO) in 2011 for Rs. 4,00,92,000/- on a freehold basis. In 2012, HIDCO changed this to a 99-year leasehold, citing the Model Code of Conduct during the West Bengal Assembly Elections. The Appellants contested this change by filing a Writ Petition in the Calcutta High Court. The Single Judge dismissed the Petition, but the Division Bench accepted the Appeal, stating that HIDCO’s decision was arbitrary and violated Article 14 of the Constitution. Despite the Court’s ruling, HIDCO did not carry out the deed of sale on a freehold basis. The Appellants then filed Contempt Petitions, leading the High Court to order HIDCO to follow its ruling. Instead of complying, HIDCO suggested a new sale price of Rs. 12,51,47,722/-, which the Appellants opposed. The High Court proposed mediation to resolve the issue, despite the Appellants’ objections. Upset by this decision, the Appellants took their case to the Supreme Court.
After hearing the arguments, the Supreme Court stated, “We find that the approach of the High Court in passing the impugned order is totally untenable. When the High Court itself, on more than one occasion in the contempt proceedings, had found that the State was bound to comply with the writ of mandamus issued by it via judgment and order dated 10th February 2020 and had also issued notice to the Chief Secretary of the State for complying with the directions issued by it, it could not have referred the matter for mediation.”
The Court observed that the State Government’s actions in this case amounted to serious contempt. Since the High Court approved the Appeal and the Supreme Court did not intervene, the State should have transferred the disputed land to the Appellants based on the original offer. The Court stated, “Requiring the appellants to pay the current market rate after their success in the High Court and this Court seems like an effort to ignore and undermine the High Court’s order.” It further explained that a Writ from the High Court, issued under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and not challenged by the Supreme Court, must be strictly followed by all relevant authorities.
Given this context, the Court found that the contested order, which undermined the High Court’s authority, was legally invalid. The High Court made a mistake by weakening its previous orders with the new ruling. Having previously stressed the importance of following its directives and issuing a notice to the Chief Secretary for compliance, the High Court should not have sent the parties to mediation. As a result, the Supreme Court upheld the Appeals and annulled the contested Order.
Cause Title: Rupa and Co. Limited and Another v. Firhad Hakim and Others (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 245)
Appearance:
Appellants: Senior Advocate Nalin Kohli, AOR Nishant Kumar, Advocates Animesh Kumar, Animesh Kumar, Tanay Aggarwal, Sandip Agarwal, and Sumit Kumar.
Respondents: AORs Madhumita Bhattacharjee, Kunal Mimani, Advocates Kartikeya Bhatt, Debarati Sadhu, Anant, and Akshay Luthra.
