IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
V KAMESWAR RAO, J, T.M. NADAF
Anvita Auto Tech Works Pvt. Ltd., Represented By Its Director Mr. Abhiram Parvathaneni, W/o. Mr. Parvathaneni Santhi Kishore – Appellant
Versus
Aroush Motors, Represented By Its Partner, Mr. K. Shaharab – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(V. KAMESWAR RAO, J.)
The challenge in this appeal under Section 13(1A)of the COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT , 2015 read with Order 41 Rules 1 & 2 of the CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE 1908, is to the judgment/decree dated 15.11.2022 in COM.OS No.372/2021, whereby the learned LXXXVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, (Exclusive Commercial Court) at Bengaluru (CCH-88) (‘the Trial Court’ for short) has decreed the suit filed by the Respondent No.1/plaintiff by stating in Paragraph-25 as under:-
“25. Point No.2:- For the aforesaid reasons, I proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER
The suit of the plaintiff is hereby partly decreed with costs.
The Defendant no.1 is directed to pay Rs.1,78,03,090/- (Ruees One Crore Seventy Eight Lakhs Three Thousand Ninety Only) to the plaintiff with future interest at 9% per annum from the date of suit till realization.
The Defendant No.2 is directed to pay Rs.07,06,900/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Six Thousand and Nine Hundred only) to the plaintiff with future interest at 9% per annum from the date of suit till realization.
Further, the Advocate for the plaintiff is directed to file Memorandum of Cost before the Office within 5 days from today.
Draw decree ac
Prakash Corporates -Vs.- Dee Vee Projects Limited
Aditya Khaitan and Ors. -Vs.- IL and FS Financial Services Ltd.
SCG Cotnracts (India) Pvt. Ltd. -Vs.- K.S. Chamankar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.
The mandatory period for filing written statements in commercial suits is strictly enforceable, and failure to comply results in forfeiture of rights, including cross-examination.
(1) Administration of Justice – Object of procedural rules is to advance cause of justice and not to thwart it.(2) Written Statement – On account of non-filing of written statement by defendant, his ....
The court affirmed that defendants lose the right to file a written statement if not submitted within the prescribed 120 days, highlighting the necessity of adhering to procedural timelines in commer....
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....
The main legal point established is that the doctrine of relation back can be applied to deem a written statement as filed within the limitation period, considering the circumstances preventing its t....
The Commercial Courts Act brings about a substantial change in the provisions relating to the period of filing of the written statement and the power of the Court to condone the delay in filing of th....
In commercial suits, a written statement filed beyond 30 days without a condonation application may not be accepted, emphasizing strict adherence to procedural timelines.
(1) Written statement in a commercial suit – Limitation period – Power, authority and jurisdiction of Court to extend time to file written statement mandatorily ceases after said mandated 120 days.(2....
A suit based on the enforcement of intellectual property rights falls within the definition of 'commercial dispute' under the Commercial Courts Act.
The amended provision allowing 120 days to file a written statement under the CPC is applicable, and dismissal on procedural grounds without considering such amendment is unreasonable.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.