Procedural compliance is paramount in commercial disputes; negligence by a party or counsel does not warrant leniency under procedural rules.

JUDGMENT

Sanjeev Narula, J. (Oral)

C.M.No.26147/2020 (Exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

C.M.No.26148/2020 (delay in filing)

2. In view of averments made in the application, the delay of 155 days in filing the present appeal is condoned.

3. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.

FAO(OS)(COMM) 126/2020 & C.M.No.26146/2020 (stay)

4. The Appellants have filed the present intra-court appeal under Section 13 (1) of the COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT , 2015 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") challenging the legality and validity of the order dated 13th February, 2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in CS(OS) (COMM) No.35/2018 whereby their application under Order IX Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("CPC") stands dismissed.

5. Briefly stated, on 21st December, 2017, the Respondent herein-Cosco India Ltd. filed a commercial suit seeking permanent injunction restraining the Appellants from infringing trademark, copyright, passing off, rendition of accounts of profits, delivery up and damages to the tune of Rs.1,10,01,400/-. Appellants are arrayed as Defendants No. 2 to 7 in the said suit which is still pending before the learned Single Judge of this Court.

6. We are not concerned with the averments made in the suit and the counter allegations made by the Appellants, as the scope of the present appeal lies in a narrow compass where we have to only examine the correctness of the impugned order. The undisputed facts are that on service of summons in the suit, the Appellants were required to file written statement along with affidavit within the statutory period of 30 days as prescribed under law. The Appellants failed to do so and filed I.A.No.5801/2018 under Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC seeking condonation of delay in filing the written statement. The said application was listed before the learned Joint Registrar (Judicial) of this Court. Vide order dated 10th July, 2019, the said application was allowed and the written statement was taken on record, subject to payment of costs of Rs.10,000/-. Out of the total costs imposed, Rs.5,000/- was to be paid to the counsel for the Plaintiff and the remaining amount was directed to be deposited with www.bharatkeveer.com. The Court further directed the Appellants to file statement of truth in support of the written statement along with affidavit of admission/denial of documents as per the Act, within two weeks from the date of the order.

7. On 27th August, 2019, when the matter was again listed before the learned Joint Registrar (Judicial), the counsel for the Respondent apprised the court that costs had not been paid/deposited till date and accordingly, a request was made that the written statement be taken off the record. The Court was also apprised that the Appellants had neither filed the statement of truth in support of the written statement nor an affidavit for admission/denial of documents as per the Act. The Court recorded the submissions, but since there was no appearance on behalf of the appellant despite the matter being passed over, it was directed that the matter be listed before the learned Single Judge.

8. On 21st October, 2019, when the matter was listed before the learned Single Judge, again there was no appearance on behalf of the Appellants. Furthermore, the order directing the payment of costs as a condition for taking the written statement on record had also not been complied with. In this view of the matter, the learned Single Judge directed that the written statement would be deemed to be not on record and further the Appellants were proceeded against ex-parte. Moreover, on the basis of the pleadings of the Plaintiff and the documents filed therewith, the learned Single Judge held t