The Bombay High Court has refused to send a decades-old family property dispute involving members of the Kalyani family to mediation after one side strongly opposed the move. Justice Rajesh S. Patil held that mediation under Indian law is consensual and cannot be imposed on unwilling parties merely because the dispute is among relatives.
The dispute arises from a suit seeking specific performance of a 1994 family arrangement between siblings and other family members.
Background of the Case
During hearings in April 2026, the court repeatedly encouraged the parties to explore settlement through mediation, noting that the litigants were closely related family members. Counsel appearing for the plaintiffs argued that even if there was only a “1% possibility” of settlement, the matter should still be referred to mediation.
However, senior counsel appearing for defendant Babasaheb Kalyani opposed the suggestion. The defence argued that previous mediation attempts before the Supreme Court and Pune courts had already failed and that the plaintiffs were not genuinely interested in settlement.
The court was also informed that several connected litigations and probate proceedings between family members were pending before different courts.
Justice Patil undertook a detailed examination of Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure and provisions of the Mediation Act, 2023. The court noted that Parliament intentionally kept mediation voluntary in ordinary civil disputes.
“The legislature in its wisdom wanted mediation to be kept as a voluntary act with consent of the parties and not something which is mandatory in nature,” the court observed.
The judge distinguished commercial disputes, where pre-institution mediation is compulsory under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, from ordinary civil suits where no such mandatory requirement exists.
Referring to recent Supreme Court rulings, the court further observed that mediation cannot be “thrusted upon” an unwilling litigant.
Justice Patil explained that courts may encourage mediation where settlement appears possible, such as when parties are close to resolving their differences. But in the present case, the court found no such indication.
The judgment records that mediation efforts led earlier by noted mediator and senior advocate Shriram Panchu pursuant to Supreme Court directions had failed. Separate attempts before the Pune District Court also did not succeed.
The court also noted allegations by the defence that media reports published during the hearings had caused discomfort to defendant No.1 and triggered calls from investors.
Even after the court granted both sides an opportunity to exchange settlement proposals without prejudice, no concrete proposal emerged.
Rejecting the plaintiffs’ request, Justice Patil concluded that there was no realistic possibility of settlement through mediation in the present 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,” the court held.
The High Court ultimately refused to refer the matter to mediation and directed that the proceedings continue on merits.
Case Details
Case Title: Babasaheb Neelkanth Kalyani vs Sugandha Hiremath & Ors.
Case Number: Interim Application No. 5241 of 2025 in Suit No. 250 of 2023
Judge: Justice Rajesh S. Patil
Decision Date: May 4, 2026
