TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (12) TMI 1765
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt as per the provisions of Section 13(2)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The question was, whether the said issue was governed by the law laid down by this Court in Dr. J.J. Merchant and Ors. v. Shrinath Chaturvedi [(2002) 6 SCC 635] or Kailash v. Nanhku and Ors. [(2005) 4 SCC 480]. The following order was passed by this Court in the aforestated Civil Appeal on 29th November, 2013: 1. Heard Mr. Vahanvati, learned Attorney General, in support of these appeals. Mr. Guru Krishna Kumar, learned senior Counsel, appears for the Respondent(s). 2. Learned Attorney General points out that the judgment in Dr. J.J. Merchand and Ors. v. Shrinath Chaturvedi reported in [2002 (6) SCC 635], has been considered and a different view has been taken in Kailash v. Nanhku and Ors. reported in [2005 (4) SCC 480], on the issue of limitation. The matters, therefore, require consideration. 3. Delay condoned. 4. The appeals are admitted. 5. Since this point of law requires to be resolved, we request the Hon'ble the Chief Justice to place these appeals before a larger Bench.... 2. In the aforestated circumstances, these matters have been....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ree-Judge Bench judgment in detail, we now turn to another judgment which has been referred to by the referring Bench. The other judgment which has been referred to is Kailash (supra), which pertains to Election Law. The issue involved in the said case was whether time limit of 90 days, as prescribed by the proviso to Rule 1 of Order 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is mandatory or directory in nature. The said issue had arisen in an election matter where the written statement was not filed by the concerned candidate within the period prescribed under the relevant Election Law and the issue was whether in the Election trial, delay caused in filing the written statement could have been condoned. 6. After considering the provisions of Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and several other judgments pertaining to grant of time or additional time for filing written statement or reply, in the interest of justice, this Court came to the conclusion that the provisions of Order VIII Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure are not mandatory but directory in nature and therefore, in the interest of justice, further time for filing reply can be granted, if the circumstances are suc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....v. Corporation Bank [ (2002) 6 SCC 33]. This Court was faced with the same issue in the aforestated case. After discussing the provisions of Section 13(2) of the Act, this Court came to the conclusion that procedural rules should not be considered as mandatory in nature. In the said case, ultimately, this Court came to the conclusion that provision contained in Section 13(2)(a) of the Act is procedural in nature. According to the said judgment, the object behind enactment of the Act is speedy disposal of cases pending before the District Forum and therefore, it has been provided that reply should be filed within 30 days and the extension of time may not exceed 15 days. It has been further observed that no penal consequences have been provided in the case of extension of time beyond 15 days and therefore, the said provision with regard to extension of time beyond a particular limit is directory in nature and that would not mean that extension of time cannot exceed 15 days. Relying upon the said judgment and the judgment delivered in the case of Kailash (supra), the learned Counsel submitted that as Dr. J.J. Merchant (supra) has not been followed in a later case though it was conside....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... file the same on such other day, as may be specified by the court, for reasons to be recorded in writing, but which shall not be later than ninety days from the date of service of summons. 15. Under this Rule also, there is a legislative mandate that written statement of defence is to be filed within 30 days. However, if there is a failure to file such written statement within the stipulated time, the court can at the most extend further period of 60 days and no more. Under the Act, the legislative intent is not to give 90 days of time but only maximum 45 days for filing the version of the opposite party. Therefore, the aforesaid mandate is required to be strictly adhered to. 17. We are, therefore, of the view that the judgment delivered in the case of Dr. J.J. Merchant (supra) holds the field and therefore, we reiterate the view that the District Forum can grant a further period of 15 days to the opposite party for filing his version or reply and not beyond that.. 18. There is one more reason to follow the law laid down in the case of Dr. J.J. Merchant (supra). Dr. J.J. Merchant (supra) was decided in 2002, whereas Kailash (supra) was decided in 2005. As per law laid down by ....