This case before the Delhi High Court delves into the consequences of procedural non-compliance in the context of commercial litigation, especially with regard to filing of a written statement without the requisite affidavit of admission/denial of documents under the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018 and the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The matter specifically concerns the striking off of the written statement of a defendant for failure to cure a defect in filing over a period of several years, despite being on notice.

Detailed Factual Background:
The plaintiff, National Fire Protection Association, Inc., a reputed international entity in the domain of fire safety standards and publications, filed a commercial suit for permanent injunction and related reliefs against Swets Information Services Pvt. Ltd. and several other defendants, including defendant no.11, later renumbered as defendant no.8. The suit was filed under CS(COMM) 987/2018, with the primary allegation being unauthorized commercial use and distribution of its protected content.

Defendant no.11, now defendant no.8, filed its written statement on 08.08.2018 via Diary No.199399/2018. However, the said filing was defective as it lacked the affidavit of admission/denial of documents, a mandatory requirement under the Original Side Rules. The parties were thereafter referred to the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre for potential settlement.

• Detailed Procedural Background:
  • After initial filing, the case proceeded to mediation in 2018 and continued until early 2024 without any significant litigation activity before the Court.
  • No steps were taken by defendant no.11 to rectify the defect in its written statement during this time.
  • On 13.08.2024, the suit came up for hearing again and was listed before the learned Joint Registrar for further proceedings.
  • On 02.09.2024, the learned Joint Registrar passed an order striking off the written statement of defendant no.11 due to the persisting defect, i.e., non-filing of the mandatory affidavit, and the inordinate delay in curing it.
  • Aggrieved, the defendant filed a chamber appeal (O.A. 166/2024) under Chapter IV Rule 3(d) of the Original Side Rules, 2018 challenging the said order of the Joint Registrar.
• Issues Involved in the Case:
  • Whether the omission to file the affidavit of admission/denial along with the written statement renders the filing non-est under the Original Side Rules and the Commercial Courts Act?
  • Whether the delay of nearly six years in curing the defect, despite registry notice, can be condoned in the interest of justice?
  • Whether mediation proceedings can be used as a ground to seek enlargement of time for curing defects or for re-filing defective pleadings?
• Detailed Submission of Parties:
  • Defendant's Counsel:
    • The written statement was filed within the statutory period of 30 days on 08.08.2018 but inadvertently without the affidavit.
    • Neither the Registry nor the website flagged this as a defect till 2022, so the defendant was unaware of the non-compliance.
    • Judicial precedents suggest that such omissions do not render filings non-est unless formally communicated.
    • Mediation time should be excluded from limitation, citing Greaves Cotton Ltd. v. Newage Generators Pvt. Ltd. (2019:DHC:172) and Bharat Singh v. Karan Singh & Ors. (2025:DHC:777).
    • Procedural law should not be used punitively when no prejudice is caused to the plaintiff.
  • Plaintiff's Counsel:
    • The filing was defective ab initio and cannot be regularized after six years.
    • An "Urgent Notice" was issued on 18.08.2022 to collect defective filings, which was ignored.
    • No application for condonation of delay showed gross negligence.
    • Relied on:
      • SCG Contracts India Pvt. Ltd. v. K.S. Chamankar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (2019 SCC OnLine SC 226)
      • ITD Cementation India Ltd. v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (2023 SCC OnLine Del 6263)
      • Unilin Beheer B.V. v. Balaji Action Buildwell (2019 SCC OnLine Del 8498)
    • Argued that limitation under the Commercial Courts Act is strict and not extendable beyond 120 days.
• Detailed Discussion on Judgments Cited:
  • SCG Contracts India Pvt. Ltd. v. K.S. Chamankar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (2019 SCC OnLine SC 226): Supreme Court held that timelines for written statements under the Commercial Courts Act are mandatory.
  • Unilin Beheer B.V. v. Balaji Action Buildwell (2019 SCC OnLine Del 8498): Delhi High Court ruled that the absence of the affidavit renders a written statement defective and liable to be struck off.
  • Greaves Cotton Ltd. v. Newage Generators Pvt. Ltd. (2019:DHC:172) and Bharat Singh v. Karan Singh & Ors. (2025:DHC:777): Cited by the defendant to argue for exclusion of mediation time; distinguished by the Court on facts.
  • Friends Motel Pvt. Ltd. v. Shreeved Consultancy LLP (2020:DHC:271) and 3M Company v. Mr. Vikas Sinha (2022:DHC:2447): Reiterated the necessity for strict adherence to procedural timelines in commercial suits.
• Detailed Reasoning and Analysis of the Judge:
  • The written statement was defective from inception due to the absence of the mandatory affidavit under Chapter VII Rule 3 of the Original Side Rules, 2018.
  • The defendant was obligated to cure the defect within 30 days of being notified.
  • The “Urgent Notice” issued in August 2022 was considered sufficient communication.
  • The defendant failed to act for nearly two years and did not seek condonation of delay, indicating negligence and disregard for procedure.

The Court rejected the defense that mediation justified the delay, especially since mediation had conclusively failed by April 2023. The Court also emphasized that the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 mandates strict timelines to ensure speedy resolution, and indulgence in such delays would defeat the very purpose of the statute.

The Court also found the defendant’s appeal to be frivolous and a clear abuse of process aimed at delaying the adjudication. The striking off of the written statement by the Joint Registrar was found to be legally sound and well-reasoned.

Final Decision: The chamber appeal filed by defendant no.11 was dismissed with costs of ₹25,000 payable to the Army Central Welfare Fund. The order of the Joint Registrar dated 02.09.2024 striking off the written statement was upheld.

Law Settled in this Case: A written statement in a commercial suit that is not accompanied by an affidavit of admission/denial under Chapter VII Rule 3 of the Original Side Rules, 2018 is a defective and non-est filing.Such a defect must be cured within 30 days of notification, failing which the court is entitled to strike off the pleading.

Mediation proceedings do not automatically justify non-compliance with statutory procedural requirements unless appropriate applications for extension are filed.Courts are to adopt a strict view on procedural timelines in commercial litigation, in line with the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, which aims for expeditious resolution.Failure to cure defects despite notices by the Registry bars the party from seeking further indulgence and re-entry of pleadings.

Case Title: National Fire Protection Association, Inc. Vs. Swets Information Services Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Date of Order: May 15, 2025
Case No.: CS(COMM) 987/2018
Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:3771
Name of Court: High Court of Delhi
Name of Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Saurabh Banerjee

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
Email: ajayamitabhsuman@gmail.com, Ph no: 9990389539