Court Decision
Subject : Commercial Law - Civil Procedure
In a significant ruling, the District Judge-2 of Kalyan addressed a writ petition filed by Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 challenging a common order dated January 13, 2023. The order allowed the Plaintiffs and Defendant Nos. 5 to 13 to file their written statements to a counter-claim beyond the prescribed period of 120 days, which is a critical timeline under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The case revolves around Commercial Suit No. 02 of 2021, where the Plaintiffs sought a declaration and damages concerning certain properties.
Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 contended that the written statements filed by the Plaintiffs and Defendant Nos. 5 to 13 were submitted after significant delays of 142 and 155 days, respectively. They argued that the court erred in condoning this delay, asserting that strict adherence to the 120-day limit for filing written statements in commercial suits is mandatory. Conversely, the Plaintiffs and Defendant Nos. 5 to 13 argued that the delay was justified due to procedural complexities, including the death of one of the Plaintiffs and the subsequent need to bring legal heirs on record.
The court analyzed the arguments presented by both sides, focusing on the interpretation of the Commercial Courts Act and the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). It emphasized that the counter-claim should be treated as a plaint, thus subjecting it to the same procedural rules. The court noted that the Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 had not properly served the counter-claim, which meant that the limitation period for the Plaintiffs and Defendant Nos. 5 to 13 had not commenced. The court found that the procedural lapses by Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 justified the condonation of delay.
Ultimately, the court upheld the impugned order, allowing the condonation of delay in filing the written statements. The decision reinforces the principle that procedural compliance is crucial in commercial litigation and that the courts may exercise discretion in condoning delays when justified by the circumstances. The writ petition was dismissed, and the court granted an eight-week period for the Petitioners to seek further recourse in the Supreme Court.
#CommercialLaw #LegalProcedure #CourtRuling #BombayHighCourt
Ernst & Young Announces Applications for Senior Associate Role in Legal Practice
08 Aug 2026
Kerala High Court Salutes R. Rajesh's Supreme Sacrifice, Urges Vigilance in Kochi Flood Prevention
08 Aug 2026
Supreme Court Backs Balanced Calcutta High Court Order on TMC Frozen Accounts in ED Probe
12 Aug 2026
Subsisting Contract Cannot Create Continuing Cause of Action for Time-Barred Debt: Supreme Court
13 Aug 2026
Supreme Court Records Centre's Assurance That Pre-2026 Transgender Identity Cards Stay Valid
17 Aug 2026
Allahabad High Court Grants Bail to Javed Akhtar in GST ITC Fraud Case, Citing Undue Delay
19 Aug 2026
SC Collegium Recommends Appointing Advocate, Judicial Officer to Gauhati High Court
19 Aug 2026
Supreme Court Rules Caste Abuse Inside Closed Room Not Public View Under SC/ST Act
21 Aug 2026
Bombay High Court Pulls Up BMC for Defying Assurance on Bandra Football Ground
21 Aug 2026
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.