Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
N.V.ANJARIA, SANDEEP N. BHATT, JJ.
M/s SATYAM COMPOSITES PVT. LTD. - Appellant
Versus
SPIG COOLING TOWERS INDIA PVT. LTD. - Respondent
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13627 of 2021
Decided On : 24-12-2021
Extension of limitation period - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Sections 23(4) and 29A - Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - Section 12A - Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138(b) and (c) - Petitioner instituted suit for recovery of money against respondent on ground of breach of contract - As per case of Plaintiffs, products were supplied after due testing and they were premium quality products - Defendant failed to make payment leading to institution of the suit by plaintiff - Respondent submits that total period within which written statement could be filed was provided to be one hundred twenty days - This total period would stand extended by virtue of orders passed by Supreme Court extending period suo motu - From last date of extension provided by Supreme Court, direction of order was pressed into service to submit that period of ninety days would be available to defendant to file written statement and that written statement was filed within such extended period – Held, submission proceeds on a misconceived notion about concept of limitation - Limitation for filing written statement provided in Order VIII Rule 1 Proviso is thirty days and not one hundred twenty days - Additional period of ninety days is allowed to be utilized for filing written statement on showing sufficient cause as grace period - It is not limitation per se - Ninety days additional period allowed to defendant, it comes into play, if defendant had failed to file written statement within prescribed period of thirty days - What was extended by order of this Court was only “the period of limitation” and not period upto which delay can be condoned in exercise of discretion conferred by statute - Above order passed by this Court was intended to benefit vigilant litigants who were prevented due to pandemic and lockdown, from initiating proceedings within the period of limitation prescribed by general or special law - It is needless to point out that law of limitation finds its root in two latin maxims, one of which is ‘Vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt' which means that law will assist only those who are vigilant about their rights and not those who sleep over them.” - Petition allowed.
JUDGMENT :
N.V.ANJARIA, J.
Heard learned advocate Mr.Abhisst Thaker for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr.A.H.Mohapatra for the respondent.
2. The petitioner by filing the present petition, has challenged order dated 25.6.2021 passed by the Commercial Court, Vadodara, below Exhibit 10 in Commercial Suit No.3 of 2020, whereby the Court allowed the defendant to file written statement on payment of delayed cost of Rs.10,000/-.
3. The petitioner- original plaintiff instituted the suit for recovery of money against the respondent- defendant on the ground of breach of contract. The defendant had put purchase orders between the period from 31.12.2017 to 23.6.2019 for different quantities of cables and wires from the plaintiff, who was manufacturer and supplier of such products. As per the case of the plaintiffs, the products were supplied after due testing and they were premium quality products. The defendant failed to make payment leading to institution of the suit by the plaintiff. The details of the suit controversy is not required to be set out in extenso.
3.1 The respondent was served with the summons on 30.1.2020. The appearance was filed and time was prayed for on 17.2.2020 by the defendant to file the written statement. The written statement was not filed for long period. Thereafter, it was tendered on 20.3.2021 together with application of delay.
3.2 Special provisions came to be engrafted in the statute with in regard to the proceedings of commercial suits including in respect of the limitation to file written statement. The Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015 came into force on 23.10.2015 bringing certain amendments to the Code of Civil Procedure. In Order V, Rule 1, sub-rule (1), for the second Proviso, the following Proviso came to be substituted:
3.2.1 Similarly in Order VIII Rule 1, new Proviso was inserted by way of substitution:
3.2.2 This was re-emphasized by re-inserting yet another proviso in Order VIII Rule 10 CPC, reading as under:-
Where any party from whom a written statement is required under Rule 1 or Rule 9 fails to present the same within the time permitted or fixed by the Court, as the case may be, the Court shall pronounce judgment against him, or make such order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit and on pronouncement of such judgment a decree shall be drawn up. Provided further that no Court shall make an order to extend the time provided under Rule 1 of this Order for filing of the written statement.”
3.3 In SCG Contracts (India) Private Limited Vs. K.S. Chamankar Infrastructure Private Limited and Others, [(2019) 12 SCC 210],
The Supreme Court's orders extending the period of limitation in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic applied to the filing of written statements, entitling the defendant to the relaxation available und....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the defendant to file the written statement within the prescribed period, the consequences of failing to do so, and the applica....
The limitation period for filing a written statement was extended during the COVID-19 pandemic, acknowledging extraordinary circumstances that require courts to prioritize access to justice.
Period of limitation – Under 23.03.2020 Order by Supreme Court, in case limitation had expired after 15.03.2020, period between 15.03.2020 and lifting of lockdown in jurisdictional area would be exte....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the strict adherence to time limits for filing written statements in commercial suits as mandated by the Commercial Court Act and the amendments to....
The court may condone delays in filing written statements due to extraordinary circumstances, such as the Covid-19 pandemic, emphasizing the need for flexibility in applying limitation laws.
The court affirmed that defendants lose the right to file a written statement if not submitted within the prescribed 120 days, highlighting the necessity of adhering to procedural timelines in commer....
The court holds that delays in filing additional written statements can be condoned under Rule 9 of Order VIII provided there is sufficient cause and no prejudice is caused to the opposing party.
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
