2020 (12) TMI 1311 - HC - Indian Laws

Court denies extension for filing written statement in Commercial Division suit. Extension request untimely.

The court dismissed the defendant's application for an extension of time to file a written statement in a suit under the Commercial Division. The ... Application for extension of time to file the written statement affirmed - Seeking 120 days time for filing the written statement under the amendment made to Order VIII Rule 1 of The Code of Civil Procedure after coming into force of The Commercial Courts Act, 2015, ended on 31st March, 2020 - application for extension of time was filed by the defendant before the Master on 5th February, 2020 seeking 8 weeks time for preparing and filing the written statement - Whether the initial period of 30 days is the prescribed period for the purposes of limitation? - HELD THAT:- The words of the amendment make it clear that the additional period allowed to a defendant comes into play only after the defendant has failed to file its written statement within the prescribed period under Order VIII Rule 1 which is 30 days. Hence, the 90 days additional window following the prescribed period is the additional period and not the prescribed period of limitation under Order VIII Rule 1. Whether the defendant can take refuge under the order of 23rd March, 2020 passed by the Supreme Court? - HELD THAT:- This Court is therefore of the view that the order of the Supreme Court dated 23rd March, 2020 would apply only to the first 30 days for filing written statement under Order VIII Rule 1 of The CPC and not to the additional 90 days which follows the prescribed period for matters covered by the 2015 Act. Besides the orders of the Supreme Court should be seen in their specific factual context and that the orders were passed in exercise of the power under Article 142 of The Constitution of India. The order dated 18th September, 2020 also restricts the window to vigilant litigants. In this case the application was filed beyond the prescribed period of 30 days. Whether the defendant showed promptness in pursuing its right of filing the written statement? - HELD THAT:- The prescribed period of 30 days ended on 2nd January, 2020 and the additional 90 days (120 days under the Amendment) ended on 31st March, 2020. The application was filed by the defendant for extension of time on 5th February, 2020 seeking a further period of eight weeks for filing of its written statement thereby extending the time till 5th April, 2020 - It should also be noted that paragraph 16 of the application filed by the defendant states that judicial functions and listing of urgent matters started in phases on and from June, 2020 and matters taken up in the regular course in this Court resumed only on and from 7th December, 2020. This is clearly an incorrect statement since The High Court at Calcutta commenced its judicial business intermittently from April, 2020 and in right earnest from June, 2020 which continues as on date. The defendant therefore cannot take recourse to this ground at all. This Court does not find any ground either provided under Order VIII Rule 1 or the amendment thereto or by the orders of the Supreme Court for allowing the application for extension of time to file the written statement - application dismissed. Issues: Application for extension of time to file written statement under the Commercial Division.The judgment concerns an application for an extension of time to file a written statement on behalf of the defendant in a suit filed under the Commercial Division. The relevant dates include the filing of the suit on 15th November, 2019, service of summons on 2nd December, 2019, and the expiration of the 30-day period on 2nd January, 2020. The defendant sought an extension before the Master on 5th February, 2020, requesting 8 weeks for preparing and filing the written statement. The defendant relied on a Supreme Court order dated 23rd March, 2020, which extended the period of limitation due to the pandemic-induced lockdown. The plaintiff opposed the application, citing the distinction between the period of limitation and the period for condoning delays. The court analyzed Order VIII Rule 1 of The Code of Civil Procedure and the Amendment under The Commercial Courts Act, 2015, which allows a maximum of 120 days for filing a written statement after the service of summons.The judgment delves into the interpretation of the Supreme Court orders of 23rd March, 2020, and 18th September, 2020, regarding the extension of the limitation period. The court clarified that the extension was limited to the prescribed period of 30 days for filing a written statement under Order VIII Rule 1 of The CPC, not extending to the additional 90 days allowed under the Amendment for matters covered by the 2015 Act. The court emphasized that the orders were passed under Article 142 of The Constitution of India and were applicable to vigilant litigants. The defendant's application for extension filed beyond the prescribed period of 30 days was deemed untimely, as it did not fall within the permissible extension period.Another issue addressed in the judgment was the promptness of the defendant in pursuing the filing of the written statement. The defendant's application for extension sought a period beyond the additional 90 days provided by the Amendment, which was considered untimely. The court noted discrepancies in the defendant's claim regarding the resumption of judicial functions at the Calcutta High Court, which further weakened the defendant's argument for an extension. Consequently, the court dismissed the application for extension of time to file the written statement, citing the lack of grounds under Order VIII Rule 1, the Amendment, or the Supreme Court orders to support the extension.In conclusion, the judgment provides a detailed analysis of the legal provisions governing the filing of written statements in commercial disputes, the impact of Supreme Court orders on limitation periods, and the importance of timely actions in legal proceedings.