Back
AMIT BANSAL
Intiyaz Sheikh – Appellant
Versus
Puma Se – Respondent
Question 1? What is the enforceability of condonation of delay in filing written statement under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC for commercial suits? Question 2? What are the circumstances under which a belated written statement can be taken on record in commercial suits? Question 3? What is the scope of Article 227 jurisdiction of the High Court regarding condonation of delay in commercial suits?
Key Points: - The petition questions whether the Commercial Courts can extend the 120-day period for filing the written statement or condone delay within that period (!) . - The Court analyzes whether a belated written statement can be taken on record without a proper condonation of delay application, referencing Friends Motel Pvt. Ltd. and OK Play India Pvt. Ltd. (!) (!) (!) . - It emphasizes that a proper application for condonation of delay, with reasons and affidavits, is mandatory for allowing belated written statements in commercial suits (!) (!) . - It discusses the requirement that the condonation application should be filed within the due period (120 days) and that filed belatedly beyond this limit is not permissible without a proper condonation application (!) (!) . - It cites a prior judgment that the lack of a condonation application results in the written statement not being on record (!) . - The Court notes the controlling judgments: Friends Motel Pvt. Ltd. (supra), Red Bull (supra), and OK Play India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. (2020) 15 SCC 585 (!) (!) (!) . - The petition is dismissed for lack of sufficient grounds to condone delay; no interference under Article 227 (!) . - The decision reinforces strict and liberal interpretation tension: provisions of the Commercial Courts Act must be strictly construed to achieve speedy disposal (!) .
JUDGMENT :
1. The present petition was filed impugning the order dated 29th January, 2021 of the District Judge (Commercial), South East, Saket, New Delhi in CS(COMM) No. 323/2019, of dismissal of the application of the petitioner/defendant under Order VIII Rule1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for condonation of delay in filing the written statement. The said application was dismissed vide the impugned order, on the ground that the Commercial Courts, under the law have no power to extend the period of 120 days for filing the written statement.
2. The suit from which the present petition arises was filed by the respondent/plaintiff before the District Judge (Commercial Court), seeking permanent injunction to restrain the petitioner/defendant from selling goods under the mark ‘PUMA’ and IMAGE logo and other ancillary reliefs. Vide order dated 15th February, 2019, the Commercial Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in the suit, in favour of the respondent/plaintiff and also appointed a Local Commissioner to, inter alia inspect the premises of the petitioner/defendant and take into custody all infringing goods at the said premises.
3. This petition was heard along w
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
