Back
2020 Supreme(Mad) 1985
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C.V. KARTHIKEYAN, J.
K. Bharat & Others – Appellant
Versus
IL and FS Financial Services Limited., Chennai & Others – Respondents
A. Nos. 8503, 8505, 8507 & 8509 of 2019 & 266 of 2020 & C.S. No. 950 of 2017
Decided On : 23-09-2020
For the Petitioners:Arun Kumar, V. Viswanathan, Advocates
For the Respondents:Manoj Menon, Advocate
The Commercial Courts Act's time limits for filing written statements are mandatory and cannot be extended, and the court lacks jurisdiction to prescribe new timelines not provided for in the statute.
Headnote:
Limitation Act - Delay in Filing Written Statement - Sections 4 & 5 of the Limitation Act
Fact of the Case:
The defendants filed applications to condone the delay in filing their written statements, citing personal, professional, and family reasons, as well as official duties. The court considered the Commercial Courts Act's time limits for filing written statements and the defendants' reasons for delay.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Commercial Courts Act's time limits for filing written statements are mandatory and cannot be extended. The court found that the defendants' reasons for delay, including personal and professional commitments, were not acceptable, and the court lacked jurisdiction to condone the delay.
Issues: The main issue was whether the court could condone the delay in filing the written statements based on the defendants' reasons and the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the time limits for filing written statements under the Commercial Courts Act are mandatory and cannot be extended, and the court cannot legislate or arbitrarily prescribe new timelines not provided for in the statute.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the applications to condone the delay in filing the written statements, holding that the defendants forfeited their rights to file the written statements and could only cross-examine the plaintiffs' witnesses during trial without going beyond the plaint's averments.
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer: This application filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of O.S Rules read with Sections 4 & 5 of the Limitation Act, to condone the delay of 623 days in filing the written statement of the applicant/4th defendant.
This application filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of O.S Rules read with Sections 4 & 5 of the Limitation Act, to condone the delay of 623 days in filing the written statement of the applicant/3rd defendant.
This application filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of O.S Rules read with Sections 4 & 5 of the Limitation Act, to condone the delay of 623 days in filing the written statement of the applicant/2nd defendant.
This application filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of O.S Rules read with Sections 4 & 5 of the Limitation Act, to condone the delay of 623 days in filing the written statement of the applicant/5th defendant.
This application filed under Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC to condone the delay of 632 days in filing the written statement in C.S.No. 950 of 2017)
1. A.No. 8503 of 2019 had been filed by the fourth defendant in the suit seeking to condone the delay of 623 days in filing the written statement.
2. A.No. 8505 of 2019 had been filed by the third defendant in the suit seeking to condone the delay of 623 days in filing the written statement.
3. A.No. 8507 of 2019 had been filed by the second defendant in the suit seeking to condone the delay of 623 days in filing the written statement.
4. A.No. 8509 of 2019 had been filed by the fifth defendant in the suit seeking to condone the delay of 623 days in filing the written statement.
5. A.No. 266 of 2020 had been filed by the sixth defendant in the suit seeking to condone the delay of 632 days in filing the written statement.
6. Since the issue to be decided is common, all the three applications are taken up together for consideration.
7. The suit was instituted in the Original Side of this Court and later was transferred to the Commercial Division and the jurisdiction of the Commercial Division was determined by order dated 05.03.2018. On the same day, by the same order, exercising powers under the Proviso to Section 15(4) of the Act 4 of 2016, namely, the Commercial Courts Act 2015, this Court had granted time to all the defendants to file their written statement within a period of 30 days and more specifically on or before 04.04.2018. The written statement had not been filed within the said period of 30 days. They had also not been filed within the extended period of 90 days granted under the Act, wherein, if sufficient reasons are advanced, the Court may take the written statement on file.
8. The applications now under consideration have been filed along with the written statement on 25.10.2019 by the second, third, fourth and fifth defendants and on 14.11.2019 by the sixth defendant. Under Order VIII Rule 1 Proviso CPC as amended, the following proviso had been substituted by the amendment brought about by the Commercial Courts Act 2015. This is as follows:-
“Provided that where the defendant fails to file the written statement within the said period of thirty days, he shall be allowed to file the written statement on such other day, as may be specified by the Court, for reasons to be recorded in writing and on payment of such costs as the Court deems fit, but which shall not be later than one hundred twenty days from the date of service of summons and on expiry of one hundred twenty days from the date of service of summons, the defendant shall forfeit the right to file the written statement and the Court shall not allow the written statement to be taken on record.”
9. Therefore, when this Court had granted 30 days time to file a written statement from the date when jurisdiction was assumed, namely, 05.03.2019, even if leverage is given for an additional 90 days, the period would have expired on 04.07.2018. The written statements by the present applicants/defendants have not been filed even within that period.
10. In the affidavit filed in support of A.No. 8503 of 2019, the depon
