9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (10) TMI 662 - HC - Indian LawsDoes the Commercial Court have power to take on record, the written statement which is presented beyond the period of 120 days from the date of service of summons on sufficient grounds, preventing the defendant from filing the same being made out? Held that - The Act envisages that the commercial disputes of specified value shall be dealt with by the Commercial Courts. Appeals against the judgment of the Commercial Court would lie before the High Court Appellate Commercial Division. Section 8 of the Act of 2015 provides for a bar against revision application or petition against an interlocutory order. It provides that notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, no civil revision application or petition shall be entertained against any interlocutory order of a Commercial Court, including an order on the issue of jurisdiction and any such challenge; subject to the provisions of Section 13, shall be raised only in an appeal against a decree of the Commercial Court. In the present case, the legislative intent which emerges is that the prescription of time limit for filing the written statement applicable to a Commercial Court is mandatory. Such an interpretation would also be in consonance with the scheme of the Act of 2015 and the objects for enactment of the said act. Petition dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Challenge to the Commercial Court's order rejecting the petitioner's application for condonation of delay in filing the written statement. 2. Interpretation of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 regarding the time limit for filing a written statement. 3. Applicability of the Limitation Act, 1963 to the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. 4. The impact of filing an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on the obligation to file a written statement. Detailed Analysis: 1. Challenge to the Commercial Court's Order: The petitioner, a public sector bank, challenged an order dated 2nd April 2018 by the Commercial Court, Ahmedabad, which rejected the bank's application to condone the delay in filing its written statement in a commercial civil suit. The bank argued that the delay was only 33 days beyond the permissible 120 days and requested the court to take the written statement on record. 2. Interpretation of CPC Provisions as Amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015: The Commercial Court referred to the amended provisions of Order VIII of CPC, which, as per the Act of 2015, mandates that a written statement must be filed within 120 days from the date of service of summons. The court concluded it had no power to extend this time limit. The High Court upheld this interpretation, emphasizing the legislative intent for timely disposal of commercial disputes. The court stated: "On expiry of 120 days from the date of service of summons, the defendant shall forfeit the right to file written statement and the Court shall not allow the written statement to be taken on record." 3. Applicability of the Limitation Act, 1963: The petitioner cited several judgments to argue that procedural laws should be construed liberally and that the Limitation Act should apply, allowing for condonation of delay. However, the High Court distinguished these cases, noting that the specific amendments to the CPC under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, explicitly prohibit extending the time for filing a written statement beyond 120 days. The court observed: "The Commercial Court is prohibited from taking written statement on record, if it is submitted beyond the period of 120 days." 4. Impact of Filing an Application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC: The petitioner contended that its obligation to file a written statement should be suspended until its application for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was decided. The High Court rejected this argument, noting that the application under Order VII Rule 11 was filed after the 120-day period had expired. The court stated: "The defendant cannot file application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC after time limit for filing the written statement has expired and then take a stand that till such application is decided, the defendant would have no obligation to file written statement." Conclusion: The High Court dismissed the petition, affirming the Commercial Court's order and emphasizing the mandatory nature of the 120-day time limit for filing written statements in commercial disputes. The court clarified that the legislative intent behind the amendments to the CPC under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, was to ensure the speedy disposal of commercial cases, and any deviation from this timeline was not permissible. "Petition is, therefore, dismissed." The court also noted that the petitioner could still pursue its application for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, which would be decided on its own merits.
|
