Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
C. Hari Shankar, J.
Atcom Technology Co. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Rahul Gupta & Ors. – Respondents
CM(M)-IPD 17 of 2022 & CM APPL. 35609 of 2022
Decided On : 20-02-2023
Article 227 - Commercial Court Order - Order XI Rule 1 CPC, Rule 14 of Chapter VII of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018 - The court allowed the additional documents filed by the defendant, ruling that they were filed within the normal statutory period of limitation available, and thus could not be regarded as belatedly filed. The court also held that Rule 14 of the Original Side Rules did not apply to the case, and that the scope of Article 227 did not warrant interference with the impugned order.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the decision of the learned Commercial Court to permit additional documents filed by the respondents to be taken on record. The respondents had filed certain documents in support of the written statement, and the court allowed the application to take the documents on record. The petitioner contended that the application could not have been allowed as it was contrary to the Original Side Rules, and raised the question of whether the Original Side Rules would apply to the Commercial Courts functioning in the various districts of Delhi.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the additional documents were filed within the normal statutory period of limitation available, and thus could not be regarded as belatedly filed. It also held that Rule 14 of the Original Side Rules did not apply to the case, and that the scope of Article 227 did not warrant interference with the impugned order.
Issues: The issues involved whether the Original Side Rules would apply to the Commercial Courts functioning in the various districts of Delhi, and whether the additional documents filed by the respondents could be taken on record.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the additional documents were filed within the normal statutory period of limitation available, and thus could not be regarded as belatedly filed. It also held that Rule 14 of the Original Side Rules did not apply to the case, and that the scope of Article 227 did not warrant interference with the impugned order.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the court found no case to interfere with the impugned order.
JUDGMENT (Oral)
1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assails order dated 4th July 2022, whereby the learned District Judge (Commercial Court) (`the learned Commercial Court') allowed an application dated 24th November 2021 filed by the respondents, as the defendants before the learned Commercial Court, to take certain documents, filed by the defendants on 17th August 2021.
2. The proceedings arose out of CS (Comm) 179/2020 instituted by the petitioner against the respondents, alleging that the respondents were infringing the copyright held by the petitioner in the logo [IMG] and were also passing off their product as the product of the petitioner. Injunctive reliefs were, therefore, sought in the plaint. As this court is concerned only with the issue of whether the decision of the learned Commercial Court, to permit the additional documents filed by the respondents to be taken on record merits interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, it is not necessary to advert any further to the merits of the substantive disputes between the parties.
3. Summons, in the suit instituted by the petitioner, were served on the respondent on 10th November 2020. Written statement was filed by the respondent on 5th March 2021. No documents were filed with the written statement. Replication, to the written statement filed by the respondent, was filed by the petitioner on 5th April 2021.
4. Thereafter, on 17th August 2021, the respondents filed certain documents, in support of the written statement. By order dated 9th October 2021 - which has not been challenged - the learned Commercial Court granted liberty to the respondents to move an application to take the said documents on record. An application, for the said purpose, was moved by the respondents on 24th November 2021. The impugned order dated 4th July 2022 allows the said application.
5. When this matter had earlier came up before this Court on 6th September 2022, it was thus recorded:
"2. The present petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 4th July, 2022 passed by the Id. District Judge East/Karkardooma District Courts (hereinafter "Commercial Court") in CS(COMM) 179/2020 titled Atcom Technology Co. Ltd. v. Rahul Gupta & Ors/. Vide the said order, the Commercial Court allowed an application under Order XI Rule 1 CPC, filed by the Defendants-Respondents (hereinafter "Defendants "), subject to a cost of INR 7000 rupees. The case of the Plaintiff-Petitioner (hereinafter "Plaintiff") is that the application could not have been allowed by the Commercial Court, as it is contrary to Rule 14 of Chapter VII of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018 (hereinafter "Original Side Rules"), which states that parties cannot file documents after completion of pleadings in a suit, except as provided in Order XII of the CPC or the Original Side Rules.
3. The question that has thus arisen in this petition, is whether the Original Side Rules would apply to the Commercial Courts functioning in the various districts of Delhi. Ld. Counsel for the Plaintiff has relied upon the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in M/s OK Play India Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s A.P. Distributors & Anr., [CM(M) 346/2020, decision dated 25th October, 2021], to argue that this issue is no longer res Integra and the Id. Single Judge has held that the Original Side Rules would apply to Commercial Courts. In the said judgement the Ld. Single Judge has relied upon certain Practice Directions issued by the Delhi High Court.
4. Ms. Rajeshwari, Id. Counsel for the Defendants, opposes this submission and submits that Rule 3 of the Original Side Rules is clear that the said Rules only apply to the Original Side of the Delhi High Court and not to the Commercial Courts at the district level. She also relies upon the Practice Directions annexed as Annexure E, issued along with the Original Side Rules, and Section 18 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, to establish that
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the scope of Article 227 does not warrant interference with the impugned order, and that the Original Side Rules do not apply to the case.
The judgment emphasized the mandatory nature of the 120-day limitation for filing a written statement and the lack of discretion for condonation of delay, as supported by relevant legal provisions an....
The court's exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and the finding that the existence and relevance of the invoices were not in dispute, and the defendant....
The court's jurisdiction under Article 227 is supervisory, allowing for discretion in permitting late defenses under mitigating circumstances, without the ability to substitute the lower court's deci....
Unconscionable laches can bar relief in petitions under Article 227; courts will not interfere unless there are grave abuses or derelictions.
A petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is maintainable against non-appealable orders of Commercial Courts despite restrictions in the Commercial Courts Act, preserving the High Cou....
Against an order dismissing an application for condonation of delay in filing the written statement, neither an appeal nor revision petition under Section 115 of the CPC lies.
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
