Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.R. Shah, B.V. Nagarathna, JJ.
Babasaheb Raosaheb Kobarne & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
Pyrotek India Private Limited & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. of 2022 (@ SLP (C) No. 2522 of 2022)
Decided On : 09-05-2022
DELAY CONDONATION - WRITTEN STATEMENT - Commercial Courts Act, 2015, Section 12 A; Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138; Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Sections 23(4) and 29A - The court discussed the applicability of the order passed by the Supreme Court in excluding the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 for the purposes of limitation as prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings. The court held that the period should be excluded for the purpose of filing the written statement and permitted to take the written statement on record. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court refusing to condone the delay and take on record the written statement is quashed and set aside. The written statement, already filed, is directed to be taken on record and considered in accordance with law.
Fact of the Case:
The defendants were aggrieved by the High Court's dismissal of their writ petition and confirmation of the trial court's refusal to take the written statement on record and refusal to condone the delay in filing the written statement.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 should be excluded for the purposes of limitation as prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings, including the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
Issues: The issues involved the refusal of the High Court to condone the delay and take the written statement on record, and the applicability of the period exclusion order passed by the Supreme Court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 should be excluded for the purpose of filing the written statement and permitted to take the written statement on record.
Final Decision: The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court refusing to condone the delay and take on record the written statement is quashed and set aside. The written statement, already filed, is directed to be taken on record and considered in accordance with law. The appeal is allowed to the extent mentioned, and no costs are awarded.
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 13.12.2021 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No.6191 of 2021, by which the High Court has dismissed the said writ petition and has confirmed the order passed by the learned Trial Court, refusing to take the written statement on record and has refused to condone the delay in filing the written statement, the original defendants have preferred the present appeal.
3. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, it appears that the High Court has refused to condoned the delay and take on record the written statement on the ground that the period of 120 days within which the written statement could have been taken on record, expired on 09.05.2020 which was during the lock-down imposed. Therefore, the High Court has refused condone the delay and take the written statement on record.
4. Having heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties and having considered order dated 10.01.2022 passed by this Court in Miscellaneous Application No.21/2022 by which the following order was passed and order dated 04.01.2022 passed by this Court in SLP (C) No.17298/2021 in the case of Centaur Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Stand ford Laboratories Pvt. Ltd., the impugned order passed by the High Court is unsustainable. The operative portion of the order passed by this Court in Miscellaneous Application No.21/2022 reads as under -
"I. The order dated 23.03.2020 is restored and in continuation of the subsequent orders dated 08.03.2021, 27.04.2021 and 23.09.2021. It is directed that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall stand excluded for the purposes of limitation as may be prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings.
II. Consequently, the balance period of limitation remaining as on 03.10.2021, if any, shall become available with effect from 01.03.2022.
III. In cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 01.03.2022. In the event the actual balance period of limitation remaining, with effect from 01.03.2022 is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply.
IV. It is further clarified that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall also stand excluded in computing the periods prescribed under Sections 23 (4) and 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12 A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings."
5. In that view of the matter, the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall have to be excluded for the purposes of limitation as may be prescribed under any General or SPECIAL LAWS in respect of all judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings. The Commercial Courts Act, 2015 being a Special Law, the said order shall also be applicable with respect to the limitation prescribed under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 also.
6. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above and more particularly when the 120 days period expired in the present case on 09.05.2020 which was during the aforesaid period as prescribed by this Court in the aforesaid order, the High Court ought to have excluded the aforesaid period for the purpose of filing the written statement and ought to have permitted to take the written statement on record. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court refusing to condone the delay and take on record the written statement is hereby quashed and set aside. It is directed that the written statement, already filed, be taken on re
The exclusion of the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 for the purposes of limitation as prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings, in....
The time limit for filing the written statement under Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC is not mandatory for suits not governed by the Commercial Court Act, 2015, as established in the judgment of 'Kailash V.....
The written statement's filing deadline was extended due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and a written statement not timely filed without condonation can be accepted if filed during the extended period.
The Supreme Court's orders extending the period of limitation in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic applied to the filing of written statements, entitling the defendant to the relaxation available und....
Written Statement – Once appellant had already filed written statement to un-amended plaint in which certain formal issues were raised later on, stand taken by appellant in written statement already ....
Period of limitation – Under 23.03.2020 Order by Supreme Court, in case limitation had expired after 15.03.2020, period between 15.03.2020 and lifting of lockdown in jurisdictional area would be exte....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the defendant to file the written statement within the prescribed period, the consequences of failing to do so, and the applica....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
