Bombay High Court Allows Condonation of Delay in Filing Vakalatnama in Summary Suit — Defendant's Delay of 282 Days Condoned Subject to Costs of Rs. 25,000/-. The Court held that the delay was not intentional and the Defendant had a valid defence, thus condoned the delay in the interest of justice.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY
  • 58
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The case involves a Chamber Summons filed by the Defendant, Marianella Properties Pvt. Ltd., in a Commercial Summary Suit filed by the Plaintiff, Swastik Enterprises, seeking condonation of a 282-day delay in filing Vakalatnama and a direction to take the Vakalatnama on file. The Plaintiff had filed a summary suit against the Defendant for recovery of Rs. 1,35,00,065/- with penal interest at 24% per annum, arising out of a work order dated 17th June 2016 for RCC civil work at Vasai Mall. The Plaintiff claimed that despite completing work, the Defendant failed to make payments. The Defendant sought to contest the suit but delayed in filing Vakalatnama due to change of advocates and internal communication issues. The Court, after hearing both sides, found that the delay was not intentional and that the Defendant had a valid defence. The Court condoned the delay subject to payment of costs of Rs. 25,000/- to the Plaintiff, to be paid within two weeks, and directed that the Vakalatnama be taken on record. The Court also granted the Defendant leave to file an affidavit in defence within four weeks.

Headnote

A) Civil Procedure - Condonation of Delay - Sufficient Cause - Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 - The Court considered whether the delay of 282 days in filing Vakalatnama by the Defendant in a summary suit should be condoned. The Defendant attributed the delay to change of advocates and internal communication issues. The Court held that the delay was not intentional and the Defendant had a valid defence, thus condoned the delay subject to costs of Rs. 25,000/- payable to the Plaintiff (Paras 1-10).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the delay of 282 days in filing Vakalatnama on behalf of the Defendant in a summary suit should be condoned?

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Court allowed the Chamber Summons, condoned the delay of 282 days in filing Vakalatnama subject to payment of costs of Rs. 25,000/- to the Plaintiff within two weeks, and directed that the Vakalatnama be taken on record. The Defendant was granted four weeks to file an affidavit in defence.

Law Points

  • Condonation of delay
  • Sufficient cause
  • Liberal approach
  • Summary suit
  • Vakalatnama
  • Delay of 282 days
  • Costs
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2023 LawText (BOM) (12) 67

Chamber Summons No. 785 of 2019 in Commercial Summary Suit No. 785 of 2018

2023-12-13

Abhay Ahuja, J.

Mr. Deepak Chitnis a/w. Roshan D’Sa a/w. Ms. Simran Jaggi i/by Purnima Bhatia for Applicant/Defendant; Mr. Deep Madnani a/w. Mr. Tushar Gujjar and Mr. Gopal N. i/by S.L. Partners for Respondent/Plaintiff

Marianella Properties Pvt. Ltd.

Swastik Enterprises

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Chamber Summons for condonation of delay in filing Vakalatnama in a summary suit for recovery of money.

Remedy Sought

The Defendant sought condonation of 282 days delay in filing Vakalatnama and direction to take the Vakalatnama on file.

Filing Reason

The Defendant delayed in filing Vakalatnama due to change of advocates and internal communication issues.

Issues

Whether the delay of 282 days in filing Vakalatnama should be condoned?

Submissions/Arguments

The Defendant submitted that the delay was due to change of advocates and internal communication, and was not intentional. The Plaintiff opposed the condonation, arguing that the delay was inordinate and unexplained.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the delay was not intentional and the Defendant had a valid defence, thus condonation was warranted in the interest of justice, subject to costs.

Judgment Excerpts

This Chamber Summons has been instituted on behalf of the Defendant in the summary suit seeking condonation of delay of 282 days in filing Vakalatnama and a direction thereafter to take the Vakalatnama on file.

Procedural History

The Plaintiff filed Commercial Summary Suit No. 785 of 2018 for recovery of money. The Defendant filed Chamber Summons No. 785 of 2019 seeking condonation of delay in filing Vakalatnama. The Chamber Summons was heard and reserved on 25th August 2023, and judgment pronounced on 13th December 2023.

Acts & Sections

  • Limitation Act, 1963: Section 5
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal in Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Case Upholding High Court's Confirmation of Collector's Award. Court Rules that Claimant's Own Admission of Purchase Price and Ten-Fold Increase Obviates Consideration of Adjacent Sale Deed...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Appeal and Grants Bail to Accused in POCSO and SC/ST Act Case on Grounds of Completed Investigation and Custody Period. Court Holds That Filing of Charge-Sheet and No Apprehension of Tampering Justifies Bail Under Section 14-...