Back
2019 Supreme(Del) 1961
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
PRATHIBA M SINGH, J.
M/s. PSA Nitrogen Limited - Appellant
Versus
Maeda Corporation and Others - Respondent
Civil Miscellaneous (M) No. 4 of 2019
Decided On : 17-09-2019
Advocate Appeared:
Vikas Aggarwal, Adv., Lalit Chauhan, Adv., Aditya Sharma, Adv., Swati Bhardwaj, Adv.
The time limit for filing a written statement to a counter-claim is mandatory under the Commercial Courts Act, and every counter-claim is required to be registered by the Court before the time for filing a written statement begins to run.
Headnote:
Condonation of Delay - Commercial Suit - Commercial Courts Act,2015 - Order VIII Rule 1 CPC, Order VIII Rule 10 CPC - Order IV Rule 1 & 2 CPC
Fact of the Case:
The Plaintiff filed a suit for recovery against the Defendants. The Defendants filed a counter-claim seeking adjustment and compensation. The Plaintiff's application for condonation of delay in filing the written statement to the counterclaim was rejected by the Trial Court.
Finding of the Court:
The Court permitted the Plaintiff to file the written statement to the counter-claim, subject to payment of costs, and directed expeditious proceedings under the Commercial Courts Act. The Court also issued guidelines for the registration of counter-claims to avoid similar situations in the future.
Issues: Condonation of delay in filing written statement to counter-claim, applicability of Commercial Courts Act, registration of counter-claims
Ratio Decidendi: The time limit for filing a written statement to a counter-claim is mandatory under the Commercial Courts Act, and every counter-claim is required to be registered by the Court before the time for filing a written statement begins to run.
Final Decision: The Plaintiff's written statement to the counter-claim was permitted to be taken on record, and the suit and counter-claim would proceed under the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act. The Court also issued guidelines for the registration of counter-claims.
JUDGMENT :
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.
1. The present petition challenges order dated 25th October 2018 by which the application of the Petitioner/Plaintiff (hereinafter, "Plaintiff") seeking condonation of delay in filing the written statement to the counterclaim of the Respondents/Defendants (hereinafter, "Defendants") has been rejected by the ld. Trial Court.
2. The Plaintiff had filed a suit for recovery against the Defendants. The same was filed as an ordinary suit prior to the enactment of the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act,2015 ("Commercial Courts Act"). The Defendants filed a counter-claim, seeking adjustment in the form of set off, as also compensation for losses. Vide order dated 17th January,2018, it was directed that the right of the Plaintiff to file the written statement to the counter claim was closed. In fact, it is submitted that a perusal of the order sheet reveals that there is no order registering the counter-claim. On 16th February,2018, the Plaintiff filed an application under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC seeking permission to file its written statement to the counter claim. The Court has proceeded on the presumption that since the proceedings are governed by the Commercial Courts Act, the time limit of 120 days for filing written statement is mandatory. The ld. Trial Court has thereafter proceeded to frame issues in the matter.
3. In order for the 120 days' time to be triggered under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC, the date of registration of the counter-claim is important, inasmuch as that would be the date on which the Plaintiff would be deemed to be served in the counter-claim. Though the Plaintiff may have copies of the same, technically, the counter-claim cannot be taken to be registered.
4. Under the Commercial Courts Act, read with the provisions of the CPC, it is clear that a counter-claim is governed by the same rules as applicable to plaints. In commercial suits, in view of the provisions of Order VIII Rule 1 CPC and Order VIII Rule 10 CPC, the Court cannot make an order extending time for filing of the written statement. This is also clearly settled by the judgment of the Supreme Court in SCG Contracts India Pvt. Ltd. v. K.S. Chamankar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Ors, Civil Appeal 1638/2019 (Decided on 12th February,2019). Order VIII Rule 6A CPC reads as under:
"(1) A defendant in a suit may, in addition to his right of pleading a set-off under rule 6, set up, by way of a counter claim against the claim of the plaintiff, any right or claim in respect of a cause of action accruing to the defendant against the plaintiff either before or after the filing of the suit but before the defendant has delivered his defence or before the time limited for delivering his defence has expired, whether such counterclaim is in the nature of a claim for damages or not; Provided that such counter-claim shall not exceed the pecuniary limits of the jurisdiction of the Court.
(2) Such counter-claim shall have the same effect as a cross-suit so as to enable the Court to pronounce a final judgment in the same suit, both on the original claim and on the counter-claim
(3) The plaintiff shall be at liberty to file a written statement in answer to the counter-claim of the defendant within such period as may be fixed by the Court.
(4) The counter claim shall be treated as a plaint and governed by the rules applicable to plaints."
5. Order IV Rule 1 & 2 CPC requires every plaint to be registered by the Court. The said provision reads as under:
"1. Suit to be commenced by plaint (1) Every suit shall be instituted by presenting a plaint in duplicate to the Court or such officer as it appoints in this behalf.
(2) Every plaint shall comply with the rules contained in Orders VI and VII, so far as they are applicable.
(3) The plaint shall not be deemed to be duly instituted unless it complies with the requirements specified in sub-rules (1) and (2)
2. Register of suits- The Court shall cause the particula
