Bombay High Court Dismisses Appeal in Commercial Suit Regarding Applicability of 120-Day Timeline for Written Statement. The mandatory timeline under Order V Rule 1 CPC as amended by Commercial Courts Act, 2015 does not apply to suits filed before the Act's enactment and subsequently transferred under Section 15.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY
  • 2
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The case involves a commercial appeal filed by Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. against an order of a Single Judge of the Bombay High Court. The suit was originally filed on 19.03.2013 as an ordinary suit. After the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 came into force on 23.10.2015, the suit was transferred to the commercial division on 13.08.2016 under Section 15 of the Act. Defendant No.1 (Colonial Life Insurance Company) entered appearance and was directed to file its written statement by 02.09.2016, but failed to do so despite extensions. On 19.01.2018, the 120-day period from the last extension expired without a written statement. Defendant No.1 filed a notice of motion seeking condonation of delay. The Single Judge held that the mandatory 120-day timeline for filing a written statement in a commercial suit does not apply to suits filed before the Act and subsequently transferred. The appellant challenged this order. The Division Bench upheld the Single Judge's order, reasoning that the Commercial Courts Act is prospective and the timeline under Order V Rule 1 CPC (as amended) does not apply retrospectively to suits already pending at the time of the Act's commencement. The Court noted that applying the timeline to transferred suits would cause prejudice and defeat the purpose of the Act. The appeal was dismissed, and the notice of motion for condonation of delay was directed to be decided on its own merits.

Headnote

A) Commercial Law - Written Statement - Mandatory Timeline - Section 15, Commercial Courts Act, 2015; Order V Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The issue was whether the mandatory 120-day timeline for filing a written statement in a commercial suit applies to suits filed before the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 came into force and subsequently transferred under Section 15. The Court held that the timeline does not apply to such transferred suits, as the Act is prospective and the timeline is not retrospective. The Court reasoned that the purpose of the Act is to expedite commercial disputes, but applying the timeline to pending suits would cause prejudice. (Paras 1-10)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the mandatory timeline of 120 days for filing a written statement in a Commercial Suit is applicable to suits which were filed prior to the enactment of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and which came to be transferred as commercial suits to be heard by the commercial division of this Court in accordance with the provisions of Section 15 of the Commercial Courts Act.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Division Bench dismissed the commercial appeal and upheld the Single Judge's order. The Court held that the mandatory 120-day timeline for filing a written statement under Order V Rule 1 CPC as amended by the Commercial Courts Act does not apply to suits filed before the Act's enactment and subsequently transferred under Section 15. The notice of motion for condonation of delay was directed to be decided on its own merits.

Law Points

  • Commercial Courts Act
  • 2015
  • Section 15
  • Order V Rule 1 CPC
  • mandatory timeline for written statement
  • applicability to transferred suits
  • prospective application
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2021 LawText (BOM) (01) 52

Commercial Appeal No.543 of 2019 in Commercial Notice of Motion No.561 of 2018 in Commercial Suit No.29 of 2013

2021-01-28

S.C. Gupte, Surendra P. Tavade

Mr. Nitin Thakkar, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Anubhav Datta and Ms. Aashna Jain i/by Tuli & Co. for the Appellant, Mr. Sharan Jagtiani, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Priyank Kapadia, Ms. Sonali Mathur and Mr. Parth Jain i/by AZB & Partners for Respondent No.1, Ms. Suchita Uppal i/by Hariani & Co. for Respondent No.2

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Colonial Life Insurance Company (Trinidad) Ltd. & Anr.

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

Nature of Litigation

Commercial appeal against an order of a Single Judge on a notice of motion for condonation of delay in filing written statement.

Remedy Sought

Appellant sought to challenge the Single Judge's order holding that the mandatory 120-day timeline for filing written statement is not applicable to suits transferred under Section 15 of the Commercial Courts Act.

Filing Reason

The appellant contended that the Single Judge erred in holding that the mandatory timeline does not apply to transferred suits.

Previous Decisions

The Single Judge passed an order on 24.05.2019 holding that the mandatory timeline of 120 days for filing written statement is not applicable to suits filed prior to the enactment of the Commercial Courts Act and subsequently transferred.

Issues

Whether the mandatory timeline of 120 days for filing a written statement in a Commercial Suit is applicable to suits which were filed prior to the enactment of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and which came to be transferred as commercial suits under Section 15 of the Act.

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant argued that the mandatory timeline applies to all commercial suits, including those transferred under Section 15. Respondent No.1 argued that the timeline is not retrospective and does not apply to suits already pending at the time of the Act's commencement.

Ratio Decidendi

The Commercial Courts Act, 2015 is prospective in nature. The mandatory timeline of 120 days for filing a written statement under Order V Rule 1 CPC does not apply to suits that were filed prior to the Act's commencement and subsequently transferred to the commercial division under Section 15. Applying the timeline retrospectively would cause prejudice and defeat the purpose of the Act.

Judgment Excerpts

The question of law decided by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order was : whether the mandatory timeline of 120 days for fling a written statement in a Commercial Suit is applicable to suits which were fled prior to the enactment of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and which came to be transferred as commercial suits to be heard by the commercial division of this Court in accordance with the provisions of Section 15 of the Commercial Courts Act.

Procedural History

Suit filed on 19.03.2013 as ordinary suit. Writ of summons issued on 15.04.2013. Defendant No.2 filed written statement on 19.11.2013. Commercial Courts Act came into force on 23.10.2015. Suit transferred to commercial division on 13.08.2016. Defendant No.1 entered appearance and was directed to file written statement by 02.09.2016. Extensions granted; last extension expired on 19.01.2018. Defendant No.1 filed notice of motion for condonation of delay on 22.02.2018. Single Judge passed order on 24.05.2019 holding timeline not applicable. Commercial appeal filed against that order.

Acts & Sections

  • Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015: Section 15
  • Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order V Rule 1
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Dismisses Tenant's Writ Petition Challenging Eviction Order for Non-Payment of Rent Under Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. Concurrent Findings of Fact Regarding Non-Payment of Rent Cannot Be Interfered With Under Articles 226...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Attempt to Murder and Arms Act Case Due to Insufficient Evidence and FSL Report Discrepancies. Conviction under Section 307/34 IPC and Section 27 Arms Act Set Aside as Prosecution Failed to Prove Intention and Weapon ...