Calcutta High Court Refuses Delay Condonation Failed To File The Written Statement Within The Stipulated Time Frames
In a recent judgment delivered by The Hon’ble Justice Arindam Mukherjee of the Calcutta High Court on October 19, 2023, the court refused to condone a delay of more than 120 days in filing a written statement in a commercial suit. The case, GA 4 of 2023, involved the defendant’s application to condone the delay and allow the filing of the written statement.
The defendant had received the writ of summons on June 20, 2022, along with a copy of the plaint, with directions to file the written statement within 35 days. However, the defendant failed to comply with this deadline. Subsequently, an application for the amendment of the plaint was allowed on July 4, 2022, and a fresh writ of summons was issued on July 11, 2022, with the same 35-day deadline for filing the written statement. Again, the defendant did not meet this deadline.
The defendant’s argument was that the time to file the written statement should be calculated from March 15, 2023, when the amended plaint was served, rather than from the original receipt of the writ of summons. The defendant contended that it approached the court within the 120-day limit from this date.
However, the court rejected this argument, stating that the defendant had not filed the written statement within the stipulated time frames, whether after receiving the first or second writ of summons. The court cited the precedent established in SCG Contracts Private Limited vs. K.S. Chamankar Infrastructure Private Limited and Others, which prohibits extensions of time beyond 120 days in the Commercial Division of the Court.
Justice Mukherjee noted, “The defendant no. 1 did not file its written statement pursuant to the receipt of a copy of the plaint along with the first writ of summons. The defendant no. 1 did not approach the court for an extension of the time for filing the written statement. Thus, the 120-day time period has elapsed from the receipt of the first writ of summons as also from the date of the receipt of the second writ of summons.”
The court further emphasized, “It is clear that the defendant no. 1, after detecting the fact that the amended copy of the plaint was not served, has taken a chance to get an extension of time to file the written statement by contending that the time to file the written statement, if any, shall commence from March 15, 2023. This contention of the defendant no. 1 could have been accepted for the purpose of filing an additional written statement if the defendant no. 1 had filed the written statement either after receipt of the first writ of summons or upon receipt of the second writ of summons.”
The defendant’s application, GA 4 of 2023, was accordingly dismissed by the court, citing the established precedent.
This judgment serves as a reminder of the importance of complying with court-ordered deadlines in commercial suits, as extensions beyond 120 days are generally not permitted.
Date of Decision: 19 October 2023
RAJESH KUMAR SONTHALIA & ANR. VS ICICI BANK LIMITED & ORS.
