For years, the weakness of commercial mediation in India was not the process but the product: a settlement reached in mediation was, at best, a contract — breach of which meant fresh litigation. The Mediation Act, 2023 changed the product. A mediated settlement agreement that complies with the Act is final, binding and enforceable in the same manner as a judgment or decree of a court, challengeable only on narrow grounds. Combined with the pre-institution mediation requirement of Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, the Act gives businesses a genuine two-track system: litigate, or settle with teeth.
What the Act actually built
The Mediation Act, 2023 did four structural things. It defined and regulated mediation — including institutional mediation, online mediation and community mediation — with a Mediation Council of India to register mediators and recognise mediation service providers and institutes. It fixed the process: mediation is to be completed within a stated period (one hundred and twenty days from first appearance, extendable by consent up to a further sixty), confidentiality is statutory, and the mediator cannot be compelled to disclose what happened inside the room. It made the outcome enforceable: the mediated settlement agreement executes like a decree. And it protected the voluntariness of the process: a party may withdraw after the initial sittings, so the compulsion — where it exists under other statutes — is to attempt, not to agree.
The Section 12A junction
Commercial litigants meet mediation mainly through Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act: a suit that does not contemplate urgent interim relief may not be instituted without exhausting pre-institution mediation. The mandatory character of that requirement means a plaint filed in its breach is returned or rejected, so the mediation stage is unavoidable in ordinary recovery and contract claims. The Mediation Act upgrades what that stage can produce. Before it, a Section 12A settlement had the status conferred by the Commercial Courts regime; now, settlement agreements emerging from statutory mediation carry decree-like enforceability with a narrow challenge window. For a creditor, that changes the calculus: a defendant\'s offer of staged payments recorded as a mediated settlement agreement is no longer a gentleman\'s promise — default moves the matter straight to execution.
Designing the clause and the strategy
Contract clauses can now sensibly provide mediation under the Act before arbitration or litigation, with named institutions — the tier is enforceable in substance because its product is enforceable.
Where interim protection is genuinely needed — assets dissipating, goods perishing — the Section 12A exception and the courts remain available; mediation does not trap the claimant.
Positions taken, admissions made and documents produced for mediation are shielded; the litigation record starts clean if the process fails.
The statutory outer limits prevent mediation from becoming the delay tactic it once was; a party stalling simply exhausts the stage and the suit proceeds.
Execution and the narrow challenge
Enforcement follows the CPC\'s execution machinery: the settlement holder applies for execution as a decree-holder would, with attachment, garnishee and the other modes available. The challenge grounds — fraud, corruption, impersonation, unfitness for mediation — are closer to the grounds for impeaching a judgment than a contract, and they are time-boxed. This is the Act\'s central trade: parties get finality and speed, and surrender the general contract-law defences they would have had against a mere settlement deed. Counsel drafting a mediated settlement agreement should treat it with decree-level care — precise payment schedules, default consequences, interest on default, and authentication by the mediator in the statutory form — because the document will be read by an executing court, not renegotiated.
The realistic assessment
Institutional capacity is still building, and parties in asymmetric disputes — a small supplier against a large buyer — should be alert to mediation used as a pressure valve rather than a resolution forum. But for the broad middle of commercial disputes, where the real question is how much and when rather than whether, the Act has quietly supplied what the system lacked: a disposal route that is faster than trial, cheaper than arbitration, and ends in a document the sheriff will enforce.
This is a general explainer on the Mediation Act, 2023 and Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, and is not legal advice. The Act\'s provisions commenced in phases and institutional arrangements continue to develop; verify the current position for a specific dispute.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is a mediated settlement agreement really enforceable like a decree?
Yes. Under the Mediation Act, 2023, a mediated settlement agreement — in writing, signed by the parties and authenticated by the mediator — is enforceable in accordance with the Code of Civil Procedure as if it were a judgment or decree. The holder executes it; the defaulter cannot simply force a fresh suit on the underlying dispute.
On what grounds can such a settlement be challenged?
The grounds are deliberately narrow: fraud, corruption, impersonation, and the dispute being one unfit for mediation under the Act. A challenge must be brought within the limitation the Act prescribes — ninety days, extendable on sufficient cause. Commercial regret, by itself, is not a ground.
Does mediation remain compulsory before filing a commercial suit?
Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act requires pre-institution mediation for commercial suits that do not contemplate urgent interim relief, and courts treat the requirement as mandatory. The Mediation Act supplies the modern procedural framework within which that exercise happens, so the Section 12A stage is no longer a formality to be endured but a forum where an enforceable disposal can be produced.
Is everything mediable?
No. The Act lists disputes not fit for mediation — including those involving serious allegations of fraud, criminal prosecution, and matters affecting third-party rights or public interest in specified ways. Commercial money claims, contract performance disputes, partnership and shareholder frictions sit comfortably within the mediable zone.