<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2020 (12) TMI 1311 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300148</link>
    <description>In commercial suits, the amended proviso to Order VIII Rule 1 CPC allows 30 days to file the written statement, with a further period available only on recorded reasons and costs, but the outer limit of 120 days from service of summons is mandatory. The additional time is not part of the prescribed limitation period and cannot be enlarged beyond that statutory window. The Supreme Court&#039;s pandemic-related limitation orders extended only limitation periods, not the court&#039;s discretion to condone delay or extend time for filing a written statement. On the stated facts, the extension application was moved after the initial 30 days and sought time beyond the statutory limit, so it was rejected as not maintainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 24 Dec 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 14 Jan 2022 08:36:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=667082" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (12) TMI 1311 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300148</link>
      <description>In commercial suits, the amended proviso to Order VIII Rule 1 CPC allows 30 days to file the written statement, with a further period available only on recorded reasons and costs, but the outer limit of 120 days from service of summons is mandatory. The additional time is not part of the prescribed limitation period and cannot be enlarged beyond that statutory window. The Supreme Court&#039;s pandemic-related limitation orders extended only limitation periods, not the court&#039;s discretion to condone delay or extend time for filing a written statement. On the stated facts, the extension application was moved after the initial 30 days and sought time beyond the statutory limit, so it was rejected as not maintainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 Dec 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300148</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>