Pune: Bombay High Court Rejects Mediation Plea in Kalyani Family Dispute; Rules Mediation Cannot Be Forced Without Mutual Consent
Reported by Mubarak Ansari
Pune/Mumbai, 7th May 2026: In a significant ruling regarding alternative dispute resolution, the Bombay High Court has rejected a request to refer an ongoing family property dispute between Sugandha Hiremath and her brother, industrialist Babasaheb Neelkanth Kalyani, to mediation. The court ruled that mediation is a consensual process and cannot be thrust upon an unwilling party.
Justice Rajesh S. Patil, in a judgment pronounced on May 4, 2026, concluded that there was no realistic possibility of an amicable settlement between the estranged family members, noting that previous high-level mediation attempts had already failed.
The underlying conflict stems from a civil suit filed in 2023 by Sugandha Hiremath and her husband, Jaidev Hiremath, seeking the specific performance of a 1994 family arrangement. In response to the suit, Babasaheb Kalyani filed an interim application under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC).
During the proceedings, the High Court initially suggested the parties explore mediation given their close family relationship. Representing the plaintiffs, Senior Counsel Janak Dwarkadas argued that the court should refer the matter to mediation even if there was only a “1% possibility” of success, asserting that the explicit consent of the defendant was not necessary to initiate the process.
However, the suggestion was firmly opposed by Senior Counsel Dr. Virendra Tulzapurkar, representing Babasaheb Kalyani. The defence pointed out that the plaintiffs had failed to submit any genuine settlement proposals despite the court’s earlier directions. Furthermore, the defence alleged that news regarding the court’s mediation suggestion was leaked to the media, creating an embarrassing situation for Kalyani and forcing him to answer to concerned investors.
Dr. Tulzapurkar also highlighted that previous attempts to settle the family’s disputes outside of court—including a 2018 mediation effort ordered by the Supreme Court and subsequent attempts in a Pune District Court—had completely failed.
Examining the legal framework, Justice Patil drew a sharp distinction between commercial suits and regular civil suits. While the Commercial Courts Act of 2015 makes pre-institution mediation mandatory for commercial disputes, the present case is a standard civil suit.
Analyzing the newly enacted Mediation Act of 2023 and the amended Section 89 of the CPC, the court emphasized the legislative intent to keep mediation voluntary. Citing Section 5 of the 2023 Act, the court noted that parties “may voluntarily and with mutual consent” take steps to settle disputes, explicitly highlighting the absence of compulsion.
Relying on a 2025 Supreme Court judgment (Rupa and Co. Ltd. vs. Firhad Hakim), Justice Patil observed that mediation cannot be forced upon a resisting party. “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,” the judgment stated.
Given the history of failed settlements and the clear opposition from the defence, the High Court officially rejected the plaintiffs’ request to refer the dispute to a mediator, directing the matter to proceed on its merits.
