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.

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 accordingly.”

2. The facts as noted from the record are, the Respondent No.1 had taken the dealership of the appellant’s products for promoting their CFMOTO Motor Cycles. As such, on giving vide advertisements and ads in the leading newspapers, assured Respondent No.1 that, they would provide all-round support for business development in order to boost their sales through Respondent No.1’s dealership. Pursuant to the application submitted to the Appellant-M/s. Anvitha Auto Tech Works Private Limited (in short, ‘Company’), who had requested the Respondent No.1 to remit a sum of Rs.20.00 Lakhs towards the security deposit for providing two dealerships herein Bengaluru Area, the Respondent No.1, accordingly, remitted Rs.20.00 Lakhs (Rupees Twenty Lakhs only) on 09.08.2019.

3. The case of the Respondent No.1 before the Trial Court was that, after entering a rental agreement, it has also invested a sum of Rs.23,80,456/- towards the Interior Decoration, Fitting and Fixtures, Electronic Gadgets, Electricals and Lightings etc., which require for running of Dealership. It was also personally visited by the CEO of the appellant-Company, who appreciated the showroom established by the Respondent No.1 towards the Dealership. After receiving Rs.70.00 Lakhs (Rupees Seventy Lakhs only) by the appellant from the Respondent No.1, the appellant had stated that Rs.70.00 Lakhs (Rupees Seventy Lakhs only) is to be adjusted towards the supply of spare parts, testing equipments etc.

4. It was the case of Respondent No.1 that, the appellant had failed and neglected to supply any of the testing equipments, spare parts, DMS Software and all other equipments and accessories required for running the Dealership. This has once again caused hardship to respondent No.1. The appellant, has only appointed the Dealership, without supply of any proper equipments, materials, software, which are required for day to day sales and services of the dealership. It was also the case of the respondent No.1 that, it had opened a service center towards rendering of services to the customers by taking a separate premises on rental of Rs.40,000/- p.m., besides they had also paid a Security Deposit of Rs.2.00 Laksh (Rupees Two Lakhs only) for Service Center premises. As per the case of the Res