SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(Cal) 420

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA
SAHIDULLAH MUNSHI, J.
TEPCON INTERNATIONAL (INDIA) LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. – Respondents
CS 170 OF 2016
Decided on : 10-01-2018

Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. A.Mukherjee with Mr. D.K.Jain, Advocates
For the Respondent:Mr. B.S. Sinha Roy, Advocate

The time limit fixed by the statute for filing a written statement in a commercial dispute cannot be extended by the court, as per the provisions of Section 16 of the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015 and the decision in the case of NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS. HILLI MULTIPURPOSE COLD STORAGE PRIVATE LIMITED.

Headnote:

Written Statement - Commercial Dispute - Section 16 of the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015 - [Section 16(1) of the said Act] - The court discussed the provisions of Section 16 of the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015, which mandates the defendants to file a written statement within the time limit fixed under the Civil Procedure Code. The court emphasized that the time limit fixed by the statute cannot be extended by the court, as per the decision in the case of NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS. HILLI MULTIPURPOSE COLD STORAGE PRIVATE LIMITED reported in (2015) 16 Supreme Court Cases page 22. The court concluded that even if an application seeking leave to file the written statement is made, it cannot be accepted.

Fact of the Case:

The report of Deputy Sheriff revealed that personal service has been effected upon defendant no. 1 and 2, but not on defendant no. 3. The plaintiff's counsel submitted that no report has been furnished with regard to the service upon defendant no. 3. The plaintiff's counsel also highlighted that the time to file a written statement had expired, and no application for extension was forthcoming.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the defendants are required to file a written statement within the time limit fixed under the Civil Procedure Code as amended by Section 16 of the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015. The court emphasized that the time limit fixed by the statute cannot be extended by the court, as per the decision in the case of NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS. HILLI MULTIPURPOSE COLD STORAGE PRIVATE LIMITED.

Issues: Service of summons upon defendant no. 3 and the time limit for filing a written statement.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the provisions of Section 16 of the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015, and the interpretation of the time limit for filing a written statement as per the decision in the case of NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS. HILLI MULTIPURPOSE COLD STORAGE PRIVATE LIMITED.

Final Decision: The court directed the department to furnish a report with regard to the service upon defendant no. 3 and made the matter returnable fortnight hence.

JUDGMENT :

The report of Deputy Sheriff dated 23.11.2017 reveals that personal service has already been effected upon the defendant no. 1 and 2 respectively on 23.9.2016 and 18.10.2016 Since there was no service upon the defendant no.3 an order was passed earlier for re-lodging the service of summons upon defendant no.3, Mr. Mukherjee appearing for plaintiff, submits that steps have been taken but no report has been furnished by the department as yet with regard to the service upon defendant no. 3. Let the department furnish a report with regard to the fate of service on the defendant no. 3.

Mr. Mukherjee appearing for the plaintiff submits that according to the High Court Original Side Rules time to file written statement is 21 days and that time expired long ago. No application is also forthcoming praying for any extension. Mr. Sinha Roy, learned Counsel for defendant nos. 1 and 2 submits that sometime may be granted to enable his client to file written statement. However, it may be recorded that on 2.1.2018 a similar prayer was made by Mr. Sinha Roy and the matter was adjourned but till date neither any application is forthcoming praying for leave to file written statement nor praying for any extension of time. However, according to the provisions of Section 16 of the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015 (hereinafter called the said Act) the defendants are required to file written statement within the time limit fixed under the Civil Procedure Code as amended Section 16(1) of the said Act says that the provision of the code of Civil Procedure, 1908, shall in this application to any suit in respect of a commercial dispute of a specified value, stand amended in the manner as specified in the schedule. . Serial No. 4 of the said schedule shows that if the defendant fails to file written statement within a period of 30 days he shall be allowed to file written statement on such other date as may be prescribed by the Court for reasons to be recorded in writing and on payment of such cost as the Court may deem fit and proper. But in no event it shall be later than 120 days from the date of service of summons and on expiry of 120 days from the date of service of summons, the defendant shall forfeit his right to file written statement and the Court shall not allow the written statement to be taken on record. In view of the such amended provision Court has no discretion to extend the time to file written statement. Mr. Mukherjee appearing for the plaintiff has relied on a decision in the case of NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS. HILLI MULTIPURPOSE COLD STORAGE PRIVATE LIMITED reported in (2015) 16 Supreme Court Cases page 22. In the said decision the Hon’ble Apex Court has categorically stated that the time limit fixed by the Statute in no circumstances can be extended by the Court. Paragraphs 23 to 27 are relevant in the present case.

“23. Upon hearing the counsel concerned and upon perusal of both the judgments referred to hereinabove, which pertain to extension of time for the purpose of filing written statement, we are of the opinion that the view expressed by the three-Judge Bench of this Court in J.J.Merchant should prevail.

24. In J.J. Merchant which is on the same subject, this Court observed as under:

13. The National Commission or the State Commission is empowered to follow the said procedure. From the aforesaid section it is apparent that on receipt of the complaint, the opposite party is required to be given notice directing him to give his version of the case within a period of 30 days or such extended period not exceeding 15 days as may be granted by the District Forum or the Commission. For having speedy trial, this legislative mandate of not giving more than 45 days in submitting the written statement or the version of the case is required to be adhered to. If this is not adhered to, the legislative mandate of disposing of the cases within three or five mon
















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top