SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 441423

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
KAMCO REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent
WP 105978/2025



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD

DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

WRIT PETITION NO. 105978 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

KAMCO, REPRESENTED BY ITS

GENERAL MANAGER

AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE,

R/O. NAITHUKUDY PO MALA, THRISSUR

DISTRICT KERALA BY M D JAMES JACOB,

AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: MD,

R/O. PANTHIRUVELIL, CHIRAKKADAVU VILLAGE,

KANJIPPALLY, KOTTAYAM, KERALA-686574.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. VITTHAL S.TELI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. UNION OF INDIA

REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,

DEPARTMENT OF LEGAL AFFAIRS, MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE,

CHANDRASHEKAR

LAXMAN SHASTRI BHAWAN, NEW DELHI-110001.

KATTIMANI Digitally signed by

C LA H X A M N A D N R A K S A H T E T K IM A A R NI 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Location: High Court of

Karnataka, Dharwad Bench

D + a 0 t 5 e 3 : 0 2025.12.17 12:04:06 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,

LAW DEPARTMENT, GROUND FLOOR,

VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.

3. BHARAT AUTOTRAC AGENCIES

REP. BY ITS PARTNER SHAHID CHONCHE,

SL.NO. 1122/1, NEAR RAILWAY OVER BRIDGE,

PB ROAD, NEW GANDHI NAGAR,

BELAGAVI-590001.

4. JYOTI AGENCIES REP. BY ITS PARTNER MR. SHIVGANESH, AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. 100-C, BM RAOD, SANTHEPETH, OPP. RMC YARD, HASSAN-573201.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.B.KANAVI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;

SRI. PRAVEEN K.UPPAR, AGA FOR R2;

SRI. DAYANAND H.CHOUDHARI, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER, OR DIRECTION DECLARING THE PROVISO TO RULE 1 OF ORDER VIII OF THE COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT 2015 (SCHEDULE -FIRST SCHEDULE TO CODE (D) IN ORDER VIII-), AS INTRODUCED BY THE COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT, 2015 BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 1 AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, ULTRA VIRES AND VOID BEING VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLES 14 AND 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA; IN ALTERNATIVE ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURAL OF DECLARATIONS DECLARING THE PROVISO TO RULE 1 OF ORDER VIII OF THE COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT 2015 (SCHEDULE -FIRST SCHEDULE TO CODE (D) IN ORDER VIII-), AS INTRODUCED BY THE COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT, 2015 BY THE RESPONDENT NO.

1 IS NOT MANDATORY BUT ONLY DIRECTORY AND ETC.

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

ORAL ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

2. This petition is filed assailing the orders dated

07.07.2025 passed in Comm.O.S.No.199/2023 on the file of Principal District Judge, Belagavi, For short, ‘Commercial Court’

3. The Commercial Court rejected I.A.No.II filed by defendant No.1/petitioner under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, For short, ‘Code’, seeking permission to file written statement beyond 120 days from the date of appearance in the commercial suit.

4. The Commercial Court also rejected I.A.Nos.III and IV filed by defendant No.1/petitioner under Section 151 of the Code and under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code, respectively, seeking to reopen the case and to recall PW.1 for the purpose of permitting defendant No.1 to cross-examine PW.1.

5. Since it is an admitted fact that the dispute is pending before the Commercial Court, the defendant was required to file written statement within 120 days from the date of appearance. Having failed to do so, the defendant cannot seek extension of time, as the law does not provide for such extension.

6. As far as the application seeking permission to cross-

examine PW.1, the Court rejected the same on the premise that the defendants have not filed a written statement. However, filing of a written statement is not a condition precedent for cross-examining the plaintiff or his witnesses.

7. Based on the averments made in the plaint, the defendants can be permitted to cross-examine PW.1 to the extent permissible in law. 8. Hence, the following:

ORDER

a) The petition is allowed in part b) The order dated 07.07.2025 passed on I.A.No.II filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in Comm.O.S.No.199/2023 on the file of Princi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top