Written Statement can not be filed beyond 120 days in a Commercial Dispute

Fact of the Case

This case arises from a dispute between Ms. Rajilaxmi Oils and Kriti Nutrients Ltd. involving trademark and copyright claims. The petitioner, Ms. Rajilaxmi Oils, filed a civil suit under Section 142 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and Section 60 of the Copyright Act, 1957, in 2020 before the Commercial Court, Indore. Subsequently, the respondent filed another suit against the petitioner in 2021, also in the Commercial Court, Indore. During the pendency of these suits, the respondent obtained an ex-parte injunction from the Commercial Court, Delhi, which led to the seizure of the petitioner’s products. The petitioner alleged wrongful seizure and continued non-release of their goods even after the dismissal of the Delhi suit.

Right to File Written Statement Beyond 120 Days

Due to these circumstances, the petitioner delayed filing their written statement in the main suit before the Commercial Court, Indore. They applied for condonation of this delay and requested that their written statement be taken on record. However, the trial court denied this application, holding that the delay was unjustified and that the written statement was filed beyond the 120-day statutory limit prescribed by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The petitioner challenged this denial by filing the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

The Core Dispute

The central issue was whether the trial court was justified in refusing to allow the belated filing of the written statement. The court analyzed Order VIII Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, which governs the time limit for filing written statements. The provisions specify:

The Court’s Reasoning

The court carefully considered the petitioner’s argument that the delay was caused by the parallel suits and the ex-parte injunction obtained in the Delhi Court, which had affected their ability to file on time. However, the court rejected these arguments, noting that the Delhi suit was dismissed well before the filing of the written statement and that no genuine effort was made to file it within the statutory period thereafter.

The court referred extensively to the following Supreme Court judgments to support its reasoning:

• SCG Contracts India Private Limited v. K.S. Chamankar Infrastructure Private Limited (2019 12 SCC 210)
• Raj Process Equipment and Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. Honest Derivatives Pvt. Ltd. (2022 SCC Online SC 1877)
• Prakash Corporates v. Dee Vee Projects Limited (2022 5 SCC 112)

These decisions underscore the importance of maintaining strict timelines in commercial litigation to ensure speedy justice. The court reaffirmed that the 120-day period is mandatory and not extendable beyond that limit.

Court’s Decision

Ultimately, the court held that the trial court had rightly exercised its discretion and complied with statutory mandates in refusing to accept the delayed written statement. The petition was dismissed as devoid of merit. The court emphasized that procedural timelines in commercial suits are strict and that delay without sufficient cause cannot be condoned to maintain the efficiency of commercial dispute resolution.

Case Details

Disclaimer

The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.

Written By

Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi