Key Points: - The judgment holds that in commercial suits under the Commercial Courts Act 2015, the 30-day requirement for filing a written statement is strict and extension is limited to up to 120 days with reasons recorded; failure beyond that can lead to forfeiture of the right to file (proviso to Order VIII Rule 1 and related provisions) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The court emphasizes that summons service is a crucial procedural step and there cannot be laxity; failure to serve summons cannot be detrimental to the defendant, and procedures are to be construed as handmaid of justice (!) (!) . - The impugned order was set aside because summons were never issued, and the defendant’s liability to file within 30/120 days could not be imposed; the written statement was directed to be taken on record (!) (!) (!) . - The judgment directs that the endorsement on summons requiring the defendant to file within 30 days should be mandatorily included to ensure proper adherence to timelines in commercial suits (!) . - The decision references conflicting precedents and clarifies that where summons were not issued, the failure to file a written statement cannot be prejudicial to the defendant; the court must proceed in accordance with law and take the WS on record (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The Registrar is directed to ensure endorsement as mandatory on summons under Order V Rule 5 CPC for commercial suits (!) .

What is the effect of the amended proviso to Order VIII Rule 1 CPC in Commercial Courts Act 2015 on the right to file a written statement beyond 30 days?

What are the implications of the absence or invalidity of summons issuance on the defendant’s obligation to file a written statement?

What is the court’s guidance on taking written statements on record when summons were not properly issued or when service of summons is deemed to have been waived?