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
No Historic Record of Saraswati Temple Demolition, Muslim Body Tells MP High Court in Bhojshala Dispute
30 Apr 2026
No Absolute Bar on Simultaneous Parole/Furlough for Co-Accused Under Delhi Prisons Rules: Delhi High Court
30 Apr 2026
Rejection of Jurisdiction Plea under Section 16 Arbitration Act Not Challengeable under Section 34 Till Final Award: Supreme Court
30 Apr 2026
'Living Separately' Under Section 13B HMA Means Cessation Of Marital Obligations, Regardless Of Residence: Patna High Court
30 Apr 2026
Consolidated SCNs under Sections 73/74 CGST Act Permissible Across Multiple FYs: Karnataka HC
01 May 2026
Allahabad HC Stays NCLT Principal Bench Order Mandating Joint Scrutiny of Allahabad Bench Filings
01 May 2026
Bombay HC Grants Interim Protection from Arrest Despite Pending Anticipatory Bail in Lower Court Due to Accused's Marriage: Sections 351(2), 64(2)(m), 74 IPC
01 May 2026
Heavy Machinery Barred in Mining Leases Except Dredging: Uttarakhand HC Directs DM to Enforce Rule 29(17) of Minor Mineral Rules
01 May 2026
No Deemed Confirmation After Probation Without Written Order Under Model Standing Orders Clause 4A: Bombay High Court
01 May 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.