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

2024 Supreme(Del) 650

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Shalinder Kaur, J.
Icici Bank Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Anirudh Chauhan - Respondent
CM(M) 1387 of 2022
Decided On : 27-03-2024

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Deepak Kaushik, Adv., for the Petitioner.
Mr. Rajbir Singh Bal and Mr. Ajay Pratap Singh, Advs., for the Respondent.

IMPORTANT POINT
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 service of summons.

Headnote:

Delay Condonation - Commercial Suit - Section XIII (1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - [Section XIII (1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015] - The court discussed the provisions of Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the power of the court to condone the delay in filing the written statement. The court referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'M/s SCG Contracts India Pvt Ltd Vs K S Chamankar Infrastructure Pvt Ltd' 2019 (12) SCC 210, which held that the commercial court has no power to condone the delay after the expiry of 120 days in any circumstance. The court analyzed the service of summons, the actions of the respondent, and the reasons provided for the delay in filing the written statement. The interpretation of the provisions and their application influenced the court's decision to set aside the impugned order and order the written statement to be taken off the record.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner filed a civil suit for the recovery of a loan amount against the respondent. The respondent sought condonation of delay in filing the written statement, which was allowed by the Commercial Court. The petitioner challenged the order.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the delay in filing the written statement was not justified and the respondent failed to provide sufficient cause for the delay. The court held that the impugned order deserved to be set aside and ordered the written statement to be taken off the record.

Issues: The main issue was whether the delay in filing the written statement should be condoned, and if the respondent provided sufficient cause for the delay.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the provisions of Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the power of the court to condone the delay in filing the written statement. The court also considered the actions of the respondent and the reasons provided for the delay.

Final Decision: The court set aside the impugned order and ordered the written statement to be taken off the record.

JUDGMENT

SHALINDER KAUR, J.

1. The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section XIII (1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (hereinafter "the Act") arises out of the order dated 30.08.2022 passed by the court of the learned District Judge, Commercial Court-03, Central District, New Delhi (hereinafter "Commercial Court") in CS(COMM) No.3614/2021 titled as "ICICI Bank Ltd vs Anirudh Chauhan" (hereinafter "Impugned Order"). Vide the impugned order, the learned Commercial Court allowed the application filed by the respondent/defendant seeking a condonation of delay in filing their written statement.

2. The facts relevant for the disposal of the present petition are that the respondent herein approached the petitioner bank, requesting a grant of a personal loan for the amount Rs. 10,00,000/- vide a credit facility application. Upon execution of the credit facility application, along with the terms and conditions for the loan agreement, the loan was granted to the respondent herein. As per the terms of agreement, the respondent agreed to repay the loan in 60 equated monthly instalments of Rs. 21,965.00/- each, with an interest rate of 11.50% per annum. The loan agreement was executed on 08.08.2019.

3. As per the loan account maintained by the petitioner till 31.07.2021, the respondent has paid an amount of Rs. 3,90,412.00/- towards the monthly equated instalments and had defaulted in the payment of Rs. 1,14,783.00/- along with late payment and cheque bouncing charges of Rs. 22,891.00/- amounting to Rs. 1,37,674/-. Other than this, the respondent is yet to pay the equated monthly instalment amount of Rs. 8,12,686/- as on 31.07.2021.

4. Owing to the defaults by the respondent, the petitioner, as per terms of the loan agreement, recalled the loan facility availed by the respondent vide notice dated 25.06.2021 and the respondent was asked to pay the total outstanding amount, failing which the credit facility extended to the respondent would be withdrawn and he would be liable to pay the total aggregate sum of Rs. 8,70,286/- within 07 days.

5. As the notice was not complied with by the respondent, the petitioner then proceeded to file a civil suit bearing CS(COMM) No.3614/2021 for the recovery of Rs. 8,64,111.00/- along with interest at the rate of 11.50% per annum. The suit along with an application under section 12(A) of the Act and an application under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter "CPC") was listed before the learned District Judge (Commercial) on 25.09.2021, whereby the learned Commercial Court heard submission on both the applications. The application under section 12(A) of the Act was allowed and disposed of while on the application under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the CPC, notice was to be issued to the respondent. Thereafter, the respondent was directed to file written submissions within 30 days of service.

6. Summons were issued as per the order dated 25.09.2021. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned to 04.02.2022, however, due to the presiding officer being on leave, the matter was further adjourned to 08.04.2022. On 08.04.2022, both parties requested that the matter be sent to mediation. The mediation was to take place in the Mediation cell, Tis Hazari Courts on 19.04.2022. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned to 09.05.2022 for settlement and on 09.05.2022, the counsel for the respondent sought time to file written statement owing to which the matter was further adjourned to 06.07.2022.

7. The learned Commercial Court on 06.07.2022 dismissed the petitioner's application under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the CPC for attachment of property of respondent due to insufficiency of material on record. Further, the court directed the petitioner to file its reply to the application under Order VIII Rule 1 moved by the respondent along with affidavit of Admission/Denial and put up the matter for disposal on 30.08.2022.

8. Vide the impugned order, while allowing the responden

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 Back to top