This document is a 3-page court judgment from the High Court of Gujarat, India regarding a special civil application filed by Union Bank of India against Santram Spinners Ltd. The court dismissed the petitioner's request to quash the lower court's order rejecting the petitioner's application to submit a written statement beyond the 120-day deadline. The court found that the lower court correctly applied the Code of Civil Procedure in not allowing written statements to be filed past 120 days from service of summons.
This document is a 3-page court judgment from the High Court of Gujarat, India regarding a special civil application filed by Union Bank of India against Santram Spinners Ltd. The court dismissed the petitioner's request to quash the lower court's order rejecting the petitioner's application to submit a written statement beyond the 120-day deadline. The court found that the lower court correctly applied the Code of Civil Procedure in not allowing written statements to be filed past 120 days from service of summons.
This document is a 3-page court judgment from the High Court of Gujarat, India regarding a special civil application filed by Union Bank of India against Santram Spinners Ltd. The court dismissed the petitioner's request to quash the lower court's order rejecting the petitioner's application to submit a written statement beyond the 120-day deadline. The court found that the lower court correctly applied the Code of Civil Procedure in not allowing written statements to be filed past 120 days from service of summons.
This document is a 3-page court judgment from the High Court of Gujarat, India regarding a special civil application filed by Union Bank of India against Santram Spinners Ltd. The court dismissed the petitioner's request to quash the lower court's order rejecting the petitioner's application to submit a written statement beyond the 120-day deadline. The court found that the lower court correctly applied the Code of Civil Procedure in not allowing written statements to be filed past 120 days from service of summons.
question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any order made thereunder ?
====================================== UNION BANK OF INDIA Versus SANTRAM SPINNERS LTD ====================================== Appearance: MR DK NAKRANI(500) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1 MS KAUSHAL D NAKRANI(5121) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1 for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1,10,11,12,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 ======================================
1. By way of this petition under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for an appropriate writ, order or direction to quash and set aside the impugned order passed by the learned Judge, Commercial Court, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad below Exh.101 in Commercial Civil Suit No.316/2016 by which the learned Judge has rejected the prayer of the petitioner herein – original defendant to take on record the written statement, which was filed beyond the period of 120 days from the date of serving of the summons.
2. We have heard Shri Nakrani, learned advocate
appearing on behalf of the petitioner at length. It is not in dispute that the Suit before the learned trial Court was a Commercial Civil Suit and was a commercial dispute. It is also an admitted position that the petitioner – original defendant did not produce the written statement within the prescribed period of limitation as provided under Order 5 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. As per the proviso to Order 5 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the proviso to Order 8 Rule 1, no Court has any jurisdiction to allow the written statement to be taken on record beyond the period of 120 days from the date of service of the summons. Under the circumstances, when the petitioner – original defendant submitted an application to take on record the written statement, which was beyond the period of 120 days, considering the proviso to Order 5 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Order 8 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the learned Judge, Commercial Court had no jurisdiction to permit the petitioner – original defendant to take on record the written statement,
Page 2 of 3
Downloaded on : Sat Feb 06 11:03:44 IST 2021
C/SCA/4238/2018 JUDGMENT
which was submitted beyond the period of 120 days. As such,
the aforesaid issue is now not res-integra in view of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Jayatma Informatics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. HCL Infosystems Ltd. rendered in Special Civil Application No.13430/2017 by which after considering various provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, more particularly Order 5 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Order 8 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure applicable to the commercial disputes arising out of the Commercial Courts Act, no Court shall have any jurisdiction to take on record the written statement submitted beyond the period of 120 days. In view of the aforesaid binding decision of this Court and even otherwise considering the relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure referred to hereinabove, it cannot be said that the learned Judge, Commercial Court has committed any error rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner – original defendant to take on record the written statement, which admittedly was submitted beyond the period of 120 days. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned trial Court. No interference of this Court in exercise of Article 227 of the Constitution of India is called for. Under the circumstances, present petition deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
In The Matter of Flora Mir Candy Corporation, Debtors. Flora Mir Candy Corporation, Debtors-Appellants v. R. S. Dickson & Co., Creditors of Meadors, Inc., 432 F.2d 1060, 2d Cir. (1970)
