Back
SUNITA AGARWAL, PRANAV TRIVEDI
Sikkim Ferro Alloys Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Shah Alloys Limited Through Company Secretary, Vinod Kumar Shah – Respondent
ORDER :
Sunita Agarwal, C.J.
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the record.
2. The present petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order passed by the Commercial Court in closing the opportunity of the defendant/petitioner herein to file written statement in the Commercial Suit.
3. Pertinent is to note that in the order dated 25.07.2022 in the Commercial Civil Suit No. 3482 of 2021, the Commercial Court noted that the learned advocate for the defendant was present. On perusal of the record, it further noted that the defendant had been duly served with the process and the vakalatnama was filed by the learned advocate appearing for the defendant vide Exh. 12 on 21.02.2019, however, no written statement had been filed till 25.07.2022. Noticing that more than 120 days had expired since the service of the summons, in the facts of the case, it was directed that right of the defendant to file written statement be closed. We may further note that an application seeking for recall of the order dated 25.07.2022 was filed by the defendant on 21.02.2023, who was otherwise rep
The court affirmed that the Commercial Court has discretion under the Commercial Court Act to close opportunities for filing written statements based on case-specific circumstances.
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 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 interpretation of procedural rules regarding the filing of written statements and the discretion of the court to permit filing beyond the stipulated period based on sufficient cause.
In commercial suits, a written statement filed beyond 30 days without a condonation application may not be accepted, emphasizing strict adherence to procedural timelines.
The right to file a written statement is forfeited after 120 days unless justifiable grounds for extension are shown, requiring substantive reasoning recorded by the court.
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 emphasized that the extension of time to file the written statement must be justified and recorded in writing, and the defendant cannot claim an extension of time as a matter of course.
Delay in filing a written statement can be condoned when within the overall condonable limits, prioritizing justice over technicalities.
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
