Case Note & Summary
The case involves a commercial IP suit filed by Metro Shoes Ltd (Plaintiff) against Flipkart India Pvt. Ltd. and Tech-Connect Retail Pvt. Ltd. (Defendants) seeking to restrain infringement, passing off, and unfair trade practice concerning the 'METRO' marks. The suit was filed in 2018, and summons were served in October 2018. The Defendants failed to file written statements within the prescribed period, resulting in a delay of 410 days. They filed Interim Applications seeking condonation of delay or, alternatively, to treat their affidavits in reply filed in a related notice of motion as written statements. The Defendants argued that the delay was due to drastic policy changes by the Union Government affecting their business strategy and that their legal team was preoccupied. The Court examined whether the reasons constituted 'sufficient cause' under Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC. The Court held that the reasons were not sufficient, as the policy changes were not shown to have directly prevented filing, and preoccupation of legal team is not a valid ground. The Court also rejected the alternative prayer, stating that affidavits in reply do not contain the necessary particulars of a written statement and cannot substitute for one. Consequently, the applications were dismissed, and the Defendants were not permitted to file written statements or treat the affidavits as such.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Condonation of Delay - Sufficient Cause - Order VIII Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Delay of 410 days in filing written statement - Defendants cited policy changes and preoccupation of legal team as reasons - Held that such reasons do not constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay (Paras 1-8). B) Commercial Law - Written Statement - Treatment of Affidavit in Reply as Written Statement - Section 16 of Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - Defendants sought to treat affidavits in reply filed in notice of motion as written statements - Held that affidavits in reply do not meet the requirements of a written statement and cannot be treated as such (Paras 9-12).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the delay of 410 days in filing written statements should be condoned and whether the affidavits in reply filed in the notice of motion can be treated as written statements.
Final Decision
The Interim Applications are dismissed. The delay of 410 days in filing written statements is not condoned, and the affidavits in reply cannot be treated as written statements.
Law Points
- Condonation of delay
- Written statement
- Sufficient cause
- Commercial suit
- Order VIII Rule 1 CPC
- Section 16 of Commercial Courts Act
- 2015
