TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court denies extension for filing written statement in Commercial Division suit. Extension request untimely.</h1> <h3>Siddha Real Estate Development Private Limited Versus Golden Goenka Credit Private Limited</h3> Siddha Real Estate Development Private Limited Versus Golden Goenka Credit Private Limited - TMI 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.
TaxTMI 