Case Note & Summary
The judgment arises from two writ petitions filed by defendants in a commercial suit instituted by Tata Steel Ltd. (respondent) for recovery of amounts due under a licence agreement. The plaintiff claimed that it had granted licence to Defendant No.1 (I K Marine Agencies Pvt. Ltd.) to use a land and stockyard, and Defendant No.2 (Gateway Distriparks Ltd.) was inducted as a co-licencee. Disputes arose, and the plaintiff filed a Commercial Suit seeking recovery of statutory, utility and other charges. Summons were served on Defendant No.1 by registered post on 3 August 2024 and on Defendant No.2 on 24 July 2024, with bailiff service on 21 August 2024. Both defendants appeared on 29 August 2024 and sought time to file written statements. The court granted time on 26 September 2024, but thereafter no further applications for extension were filed. The defendants eventually filed written statements on 16 December 2024, which was beyond 120 days from the date of service. The plaintiff filed applications (Exh.22 and 24) to take off the written statements, which were allowed by the Commercial Court. The defendants challenged this order under Article 227 of the Constitution. The High Court examined the provisions of Order V Rule 1, Order VIII Rule 1 CPC, and Section 16 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, which mandate that a written statement in a commercial suit must be filed within 30 days, extendable up to 120 days, and no further extension is permissible. The court held that the time limit is mandatory and the court has no power to extend it beyond 120 days, even if the delay was caused by the court's own adjournments. The court also rejected the defendants' argument that service was defective, noting that they had appeared and sought time, thereby waiving any objection. The High Court dismissed both writ petitions, upholding the order striking off the written statements.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Commercial Suit - Time Limit for Filing Written Statement - Order V Rule 1, Order VIII Rule 1 CPC, Section 16 of Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - The Commercial Court allowed applications to take off the record written statements filed by defendants beyond 120 days from service of summons. The High Court upheld the order, holding that the time limit of 120 days is mandatory and cannot be extended by the court, even if the delay was due to the court's own adjournments. The court rejected the argument that the defendants were not served properly, as they had appeared and sought time. (Paras 1-23)
B) Civil Procedure - Inherent Powers - Section 151 CPC - Cannot Override Statutory Mandate - The court held that inherent powers under Section 151 CPC cannot be invoked to extend the time for filing written statement beyond the statutory limit of 120 days under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The legislative intent is to ensure expeditious disposal of commercial disputes. (Paras 20-22)
C) Civil Procedure - Service of Summons - Waiver of Objection - Order V Rule 1 CPC - The defendants, by appearing before the court and seeking time to file written statement, waived any objection regarding defective service. The court found that the summons were duly served and the defendants had sufficient notice. (Paras 10-12)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Commercial Court has the power to extend the time for filing a written statement beyond 120 days from the date of service of summons, and whether the written statements filed beyond the prescribed period are liable to be taken off the record.
Final Decision
Both writ petitions are dismissed. The common order dated 25 July 2025 passed by the learned District Judge, Commercial Court at Panvel, allowing the applications (Exh.22 and 24) and ordering the written statements (Exhs.18 and 19) to be taken off the record, is upheld. Rule discharged. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Order V Rule 1 CPC
- Order VIII Rule 1 CPC
- Section 16 of Commercial Courts Act
- 2015
- mandatory time limit for filing written statement
- 120 days
- striking off defence
- no extension beyond 120 days
- inherent power of court cannot override statutory mandate
Case Details
WRIT PETITION NO.3514 OF 2026 and WRIT PETITION NO.11322 OF 2025
Mr. Vaibhav Ugle i/by Mr. Vikas Somawanshi, Mr. Prashant Mahajan, Mr. Aditya Shinde, Ms. Kalpana Pandey for Petitioner in WP No.3514 of 2026; Mr. Mangesh M. Patel for Petitioner in WP No.11322 of 2025; Mr. Bhushan Deshmukh with Mr. H.N. Vakil, Mr. Samkit Shah, Mr. Farhad Vakil i/by Mull and Mulla and Craigie Blunt and Caroe for Respondent No.1.
I K Marine Agencies Pvt. Ltd. and Gateway Distriparks Ltd.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging a common order of the Commercial Court allowing applications to take off the record written statements filed by defendants in a commercial suit.
Remedy Sought
The petitioners (defendants) sought to set aside the order of the Commercial Court striking off their written statements and to allow them to defend the suit.
Filing Reason
The Commercial Court allowed the plaintiff's applications to take off the record the written statements filed by the defendants beyond the 120-day limit prescribed under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC and Section 16 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
Previous Decisions
The Commercial Court (District Judge, Panvel) allowed applications (Exh.22 and 24) filed by the plaintiff, ordering the written statements (Exhs.18 and 19) of Defendant Nos.1 and 2 to be taken off the record.
Issues
Whether the Commercial Court has the power to extend the time for filing a written statement beyond 120 days from the date of service of summons in a commercial suit?
Whether the written statements filed by the defendants beyond the prescribed period are liable to be taken off the record?
Whether the defendants waived their objection regarding defective service by appearing and seeking time to file written statement?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the delay in filing written statement was not intentional and was caused by the court granting time; the time limit under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC is directory and not mandatory; the court has inherent power under Section 151 CPC to extend time; and service of summons was defective.
Respondent argued that the time limit of 120 days is mandatory under Section 16 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and Order VIII Rule 1 CPC; no extension beyond 120 days is permissible; the defendants appeared and sought time, thus waiving any objection to service; and the written statements were filed beyond the prescribed period.
Ratio Decidendi
The time limit of 120 days for filing a written statement in a commercial suit, as prescribed under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC read with Section 16 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, is mandatory and cannot be extended by the court. The court has no inherent power under Section 151 CPC to override this statutory mandate. Once the period expires, the written statement filed beyond 120 days is liable to be taken off the record. The defendants, by appearing and seeking time, waived any objection regarding defective service.
Judgment Excerpts
The time limit of 120 days for filing a written statement in a commercial suit is mandatory and cannot be extended by the court.
The defendants, by appearing before the court and seeking time to file written statement, waived any objection regarding defective service.
Inherent powers under Section 151 CPC cannot be invoked to extend the time for filing written statement beyond the statutory limit of 120 days under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
Procedural History
The plaintiff (Tata Steel Ltd.) filed a Commercial Suit for recovery of amounts. Summons were served on Defendant No.1 on 3 August 2024 and on Defendant No.2 on 24 July 2024 (bailiff service on 21 August 2024). Defendants appeared on 29 August 2024 and sought time to file written statement. The court granted time on 26 September 2024. No further extension applications were filed. Defendants filed written statements on 16 December 2024. Plaintiff filed applications (Exh.22 and 24) to take off the written statements. The Commercial Court allowed the applications on 25 July 2025. Defendants filed writ petitions under Article 227 challenging the order. The High Court dismissed the petitions on 28 April 2026.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC): Order V Rule 1, Order VIII Rule 1, Section 151
- Commercial Courts Act, 2015: Section 16
- Constitution of India: Article 227
