Beyond 120 Days, No Right to File Written Statement – Delhi High Court

Share:
property interest free Property Worker Bail Medical Work Bail spDispute a Suit v Illegal Duty office Dowry Husband Parole marriage statements Financial Children Pay Property vLife PostClaims Evidence Medical delhi Goods Hindu Marriage Act Life Evidence Service Agreement CashPetitioner POCSO Property violence VIGOURA Eviction evidence BSuicide ail stability Property Advocates Samsung tax EWS Workman Delhi Delhi High Court HALDIRAM Suit Health bailDate of Decision: April 03, 2024 M/S DSS Buildtech Pvt. Ltd vs. Manoj Kayal Chargesheet bankEvidence Tobacco Payments Jail Google family non-appearance-despite-repeated-warnings-persistent-evasion-from-cbi Tribunal's Divorce Education cbi Bail Written written Disciplinary Mobile Affidavit Payment limited rape Divorce violence publication natco parole accident 25 License Cross-Examine family Maintenance public Publication Bail father Bail  specific Habitual bail OBC-NCL deed disciplinary missing property nature ews sarfaesi jail post amendment evidence jurisdiction government Candidates license Training property Cheque maintenance property 304 evidence diploma police tax divorce divorce police negligence contract disability

In a notable judgment, the Delhi High Court, under the bench of Hon’ble Ms. Justice Shalinder Kaur, today underscored the non-negotiability of statutory time limits in commercial disputes. The case titled ICICI Bank Ltd. vs Anirudh Chauhan revolved around the issue of condoning the delay in filing a written statement in a loan default matter.

The Crux of Legal Point: At the heart of the judgment was the interpretation of Order VIII Rule 1 and the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Specifically, the matter concerned whether a delay beyond the statutorily stipulated 120 days for filing a written statement in a commercial dispute could be condoned.

Background and Factual Matrix: ICICI Bank Ltd., the petitioner, approached the High Court challenging the Commercial Court’s decision that condoned the respondent’s delay in filing a written statement. The dispute originated from a loan default by Chauhan, against whom the bank sought recovery. The bank’s contention was based on the strict timelines set by the Supreme Court for filing written statements in commercial disputes.

Detailed Court Assessment:

Justice Kaur delved into the case, emphasizing the mandatory nature of the 120-day period for filing written statements in commercial disputes, as per Supreme Court directives in M/s SCG Contracts India Pvt Ltd Vs K S Chamankar Infrastructure Pvt Ltd. The judgment scrutinized the correctness of service of summons and the implication of the mediation process on the filing timeline.

The Court observed the Commercial Court’s oversight in its failure to rigorously examine the reasons for the delay. It stressed the need for adherence to prescribed timelines, highlighting the importance of speedy and efficient justice in commercial litigation.

Verdict: Overturning the Commercial Court’s decision, the High Court directed that the respondent’s written statement, filed beyond the permissible period, should not be taken on record. This decision firmly reiterates the judiciary’s stance on the sanctity of procedural timelines in commercial matters.

 Date of Decision: March 27, 2024

ICICI Bank Ltd. vs Anirudh Chauhan

Download Judgment

Share: