AJOY KUMAR MUKHERJEE
Inland Vikash Limited – Appellant
Versus
Board of Trustees for the port of Kolkata – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.) :
1. Plaintiff / petitioner herein filed a suit being T.S. No. 567 of 2005 against the defendants/opposite parties herein for specific performance of contract allegedly entered into by and between plaintiff and defendant no.1, mandatory injunction and for other reliefs. Along with the plaint the petitioner herein also filed application for injunction under order XXXIX rule 1 and 2. By an order dated April 13, 2005 the court below passed interim order restraining defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property by the petitioner and/or transferring and/or dealing with, encumbering the suit premises. The defendant no.1 entered appearance in the suit on April 25, 2005. On September, 20, 2005 the opposite party/defendant filed an application under order VII rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking rejection of the plaint. On the same day the said opposite party no. 1 also filed an application under order XXXIX rule 4 of the Code praying for vacating the interim order of injunction passed by the court on 13 April, 2005.
2. Thereafter by the order dated May, 15, 2006 the application filed by opposite par
A.C. Narayanan Vs State of Maharashtra & Anr. (AIR 2014 SC 630)
Kailash Vs. Nanhku and others reported in (2005) 4 SCC 480.
Atcom Technologies limited Vs. Y.A. Chunawala and Company and Others reported in (2018) 6 SCC 639.
Desh Raj Vs. Balkishan reported in (2020) 2 SCC 708.
K.K. Velusamy Vs. N. Palanisamy reported in (2011) 11 SCC 275.
Bhanu Kumar Jain Vs. Archana Kumar and another reported in (2005) 1 SCC 787.
Amalendu Kumar Bera and others Vs. State of West Bengal reported in (2013) 4 SCC 52.
The court reinforced that the obligation to file a written statement timely is critical, and mere claims of non-service of summons do not justify excessive delays.
Point of Law : Civil Law – Condonation of Delay - Extension of time for filing written statement - Court must be satisfied that the defendant was prevented from a sufficient cause for exceptional and....
The main legal point established is that while the time schedule for filing a written statement should generally be honored, exceptional situations may warrant an extension to ensure a fair trial and....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that in commercial suits, the court does not have the power to condone the delay in filing the written statement beyond 120 days from the date of s....
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....
The court has discretionary power to condone the delay in filing the written statement, subject to a stricter yardstick for non-commercial suits, and the defendant should be given an opportunity to e....
In commercial suits, written statements within 120 days from valid summons service (with plaint copy) must be accepted; extensions lean towards condonation if justified; procedural timelines subservi....
Civil Suit - Collaboration Agreement - Absence of any cogent explanation forthcoming for inaction of petitioner/defendant, till 20th August 2020, Trial Court rightly dismissed the application under O....
The court held that the provisions of Order VIII Rule 1 CPC are directory, allowing written statements to be filed beyond prescribed delays in exceptional circumstances, particularly to serve the int....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the time for filing a written statement should be reckoned from the date of the order disposing of the application under Order VII Rule 11 of ....
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.