Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Sanjay V.Gangapurwala, P.D.Audikesavalu, JJ.
Maria Albert Stanly – Petitioner
Versus
Diamond Hospital Equipments- Respondent
C.S. (Comm. Div.) Nos. 14 and 48 of 2022, Tr. C.S. Nos. 912 to 914 and 916 of 2007, A. Nos. 395, 396, 984, 3751, 3758, 3759, 3877 and 4820 of 2022, A. No. 4 of 2023 and O.A. Nos. 142 to 146, 366, 367, 473 and 474 of 2022
Decided On : 22-12-2023
Written Statement - Commercial Dispute - Order VIII Rule 6-A(3) of CPC, Order V Rule 1 and Order VIII Rule 10 of the CPC - The court discussed the applicability of the outer time limit of 120 days for filing a Written Statement by a Plaintiff in response to a Counter-Claim made by a Defendant in a suit arising out of a commercial dispute. The court analyzed the provisions of Order VIII Rule 6-A(3) of CPC, Order V Rule 1, and Order VIII Rule 10 of the CPC, and the Madras High Court Original Side Rules. The court emphasized the importance of fixing time limits and the consequences of failing to file a Written Statement within the specified period. The judgment also highlighted the need for clarity and uniform procedure in handling Counter-Claims and the computation of limitation for filing Written Statements in response to Counter-Claims.
Fact of the Case:
The court addressed the questions of law regarding the applicability of the outer time limit of 120 days for filing a Written Statement by a Plaintiff in response to a Counter-Claim made by a Defendant in a suit arising out of a commercial dispute. The court considered conflicting views expressed by different judges and the need for an authoritative pronouncement on the matter.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the provisions of Order VIII Rule 6-A(3) of CPC, Order V Rule 1, and Order VIII Rule 10 of the CPC, as well as the Madras High Court Original Side Rules, were crucial in determining the time limits for filing Written Statements in response to Counter-Claims. The court emphasized the importance of fixing time limits, the consequences of failing to file a Written Statement within the specified period, and the need for uniform procedure and clarity in handling Counter-Claims.
Issues: The issues revolved around the interpretation and application of the provisions of Order VIII Rule 6-A(3) of CPC, Order V Rule 1, and Order VIII Rule 10 of the CPC, as well as the Madras High Court Original Side Rules, in the context of filing Written Statements in response to Counter-Claims in commercial disputes. The court also addressed the need for an authoritative pronouncement on the matter due to conflicting views expressed by different judges.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the analysis of the statutory provisions, including Order VIII Rule 6-A(3) of CPC, Order V Rule 1, and Order VIII Rule 10 of the CPC, and the Madras High Court Original Side Rules. The court emphasized the overriding effect of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, in respect of inconsistent provisions of the Madras High Court Original Side Rules and the need for uniform procedure and clarity in handling Counter-Claims.
Final Decision: The court concluded that the provisions of Order VIII Rule 6-A(3) of CPC, Order V Rule 1, and Order VIII Rule 10 of the CPC, as well as the Madras High Court Original Side Rules, were crucial in determining the time limits for filing Written Statements in response to Counter-Claims. The court emphasized the importance of fixing time limits, the consequences of failing to file a Written Statement within the specified period, and the need for uniform procedure and clarity in handling Counter-Claims. The court also directed the Commercial Division of the Court to decide the present suits and connected applications accordingly.
ORDER :
P.D. AUDIKESAVALU, J.
The instant reference placed before this Division Bench of the Court raises the following questions of law for determination:-
(ii) If so, what would be the date from which the said period would have to be reckoned for filing of Written Statement by a Plaintiff to a Counter-Claim made by a Defendant?
2. A Learned Judge of this Court in M/s. CSCO LLC -vs- M/s.Lakshmi Saraswathi Spintex Limited (Order dated 28.01.2022 in A. No. 4791 of 2021 in C.S. No. 697 of 2017), who examined the said controversy, held as follows:-
23. This Court on the original side is governed by the Madras High Court Original Side Rules. Order V Rules 2 to 5 of the Original Side Rules speaks about the procedure for filing the Written Statement for the counter claim and the time limit within which it has to be filed. However even under these rules, there is no rigid time limit for filing the Written Statement for the counter claim and discretion is given to the Court to extend the time for filing the Written Statement. These rules must also be kept in mind since there is nothing available under the amended provisions of CPC., governing the Commercial Division running contrary to these rules and which specifically deals with the time limit for filing the Written Statement for a counter claim. Some clarity is required to be given for a Written Statement filed by the Plaintiffs for the counter claim made by the Defendants since Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC., does not apply and it is only Order VIII Rule 6-A (3) which specifically provides for the Court to fix such period for filing the Written Statement. The Court while fixing such a time limit for filing the Written Statement, can always keep in mind the object behind the Commercial Courts Act and ensure that the Written Statement is filed within the mandatory period fixed for the Defendants. It will always be open to the Court acting under the Commercial Courts Act, to forfeit the right of the Plaintiffs if the Written Statement for the counter claim is filed beyond the time limit fixed by the Court, without showing sufficient cause.
24. The judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SCG Contracts (India) (P) Ltd. -vs- K.S.Chamankar Infrastructure (P) Ltd. [(2019) 12 SCC 210] specifically dealt with the scope of Order VIII Rule 1 r/w Order VIII Rule 10 of CPC. Therefore, the Apex Court was only dealing with the mandatory period fixed for filing a Written Statement by the Defendants. The time period for filing a Written Statement for the counter claim was not wi
The court clarified that there is no fixed time limit for filing additional written statements to counter-claims, and such filings can be made upon obtaining leave from the court.
The mandatory period of 120 days for filing Written Statements applies to Counter-claims, and improper service of the Counter-claim prevents the limitation period from commencing.
The mandatory period of 120 days for filing Written Statements applies to Counter-claims, and improper service of the Counter-claim prevents the limitation period from commencing.
The timeline for filing replies to counter claims under the Commercial Courts Act is strictly 120 days, and extensions must adhere to the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code.
A counterclaim must be raised before issue framing begins; late submissions risk disrupting judicial efficiency and violate procedural rules.
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 court ruled that discretion is preserved in allowing plaintiffs to file written statements to counter-claims beyond the 90-day limit if permitted by the court.
The court has discretion under CPC provisions to allow extensions for filing replies to counter-claims, affirming flexibility over rigid limitations.
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
