Back
Admiralty Act prevails over Commercial Courts Act for written statement delays:
In a significant ruling clarifying the procedural framework for maritime claims, the has held that the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017, being a subsequent special statute, overrides the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 concerning the timeline for filing written statements. Justice M.A. Abdul Hakhim allowed the condonation of a 135-day delay in filing the written statement by and , emphasizing that the original, directory provision of applies to admiralty suits.
Background: A Seafarer's Disappearance and a Delayed Defence
The underlying Admiralty Suit No.2/2023 was filed by C.V. Gangadharan and his wife M.P. Shobhana, seeking compensation for the disappearance of their son from a vessel owned by the defendants on March 8, 2009. The suit was instituted on January 31, 2023, along with an application to sue as indigent persons. Summons were served on the defendants on February 22, 2024, but the written statement was filed only on August 6, 2024 — 166 days later, leading to a 135-day delay.
The defendants sought condonation under , explaining that the shipping company had closed its business in 2017-18, employees had left, and retrieving old files and appointing a new lawyer consumed time. The plaintiffs opposed the application, arguing the dispute was commercial and therefore subject to the mandatory 120-day deadline under the Commercial Courts Act, which they contended the court could not extend.
The Core Legal Question: Which Statute Governs?
Justice Hakhim framed the central issue: whether the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 applies to admiralty suits filed under the Admiralty Act, 2017. If the Commercial Courts Act applied, the delay beyond 120 days (i.e., 135 days) would be beyond the condonable period and the written statement would be forfeited. If not, the original CPC provision allowing up to 90 days' condonation — held to be directory in — would permit the court to accept the delayed filing.
Arguments of Counsel
For the Defendants (Applicants): argued that the suit was filed under the Admiralty Act, a special statute enacted after the Commercial Courts Act. She relied on , which applies the CPC only to the extent consistent with the Act. Since neither the Admiralty Act nor its rules prescribe a limitation for filing written statements, the unamended CPC Order VIII Rule 1 applies, making the 90-day period directory. She cited Owners and Parties Interested in the Vessel M.V. Polaris Galaxy v. Banque Cantonale De Geneve (2022) to argue that the Admiralty Act prevails over the Commercial Courts Act, and the 's decision in Shipoil Limited v. M.T. Standorf (2025) for similar reasoning.
For the Plaintiffs (Respondents): countered that explicitly includes disputes relating to admiralty and maritime law as commercial disputes. Thus, the amended CPC — mandating written statement within 120 days and forfeiture on expiry — applies. He argued that incorporates the CPC as amended for commercial disputes. He relied on SCG Contracts (India) Private Limited v. K.S. Chamankar Infrastructure Private Limited (2019), where the held the 120-day limit mandatory. He also invoked Vijai Pratap Singh v. Dukh Haran Nath Singh (1962) to argue that the suit commenced when the application to sue in forma pauperis was presented.
Court's Analysis: Admiralty Law Stands Apart
The court undertook a detailed examination of the statutory scheme. It noted that admiralty jurisdiction has historically been exercised exclusively by High Courts and was never conferred on commercial courts. The Admiralty Act, 2017 now vests this jurisdiction solely in the High Courts of coastal states. , while classifying admiralty disputes as commercial, does not transfer admiralty jurisdiction to commercial courts — it merely identifies the nature of the dispute.
Justice Hakhim observed that "there is no reference to the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, in the Admiralty Act, 2017." He further held that if a claim is a maritime claim under , it is "exclusively triable before the specified High Courts and not before any other Court." Consequently, the procedural amendments introduced by the Commercial Courts Act for commercial suits do not apply to admiralty proceedings.
Applying , which incorporates the CPC, the court found no inconsistency between the unamended Order VIII Rule 1 and the admiralty framework. Since the original proviso to Rule 1 — allowing a maximum of 90 days after the initial 30 days — has been held directory, the court retains discretion to condone delays. The court distinguished M.V. Polaris Galaxy , noting that it did not address the specific issue of the applicability of the Commercial Courts Act's CPC amendments to admiralty suits.
Key Observations
"If the claim in a suit is a maritime claim defined under , 2017, it is exclusively triable before the specified High Courts and not before any other Court."
"There is no reference to the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, in the Admiralty Act, 2017."
"Since the outer limit of 90 days specified in the original Proviso to Rule 1 of Order VIII CPC is only directory, the delay in filing the Written Statement can be condoned if this Court is satisfied with the explanations which are shown in the Application."
"Considering these circumstances, I am of the view that the delay in filing the Written Statement by the Applicants/Defendants is well explained to the satisfaction of this Court and hence the Written Statement can be ordered to be accepted."
Decision and Implications
The court allowed the application, condoned the delay of 135 days, and ordered the written statement to be taken on record. The ruling clarifies that admiralty litigation in India is governed by its own procedural regime, insulated from the stricter timelines of the Commercial Courts Act. This decision provides important guidance for parties in maritime claims, reaffirming that the directory nature of CPC Order VIII Rule 1 applies, and that courts retain discretion to accept delayed written statements upon satisfactory explanation of the delay.
