The Single Bench of Bombay High Court consisting of Justice Bharati Dangre held that any period beyond the prescribed period during which the Court or Tribunal has discretion to allow a person to institute the proceedings cannot be taken to be the prescribed period.
Facts and Procedural History
The plaintiff, Pyrotek India Private Limited, instituted a Commercial Suit seeking an injunction and restraint order against the defendants from using, divulging, distributing, publishing, revealing, or dealing with the proprietary information and trade secrets of the plaintiff and a declaration that the defendants are not entitled to use the information and trade secrets of the plaintiff. In the said suit, the present petitioners were impleaded as defendant Nos. 1 and 6. The defendants received summons on 10/01/2020 and it was imperative for them to file the written statement within 30 days. On 14/01/2020, by putting their appearance, they sought time to file the written statement and they were granted time to do so on or before 11/02/2020. The time to file the written statement was extended, on an application filed by the defendants, till 11/03/2020. Since some documents were not available to the defendants, more time was sought for fling the written statement and the application was allowed, thereby the time to file the written statement was extended upto 24/03/2020.
Contentions made
Appellants: In the wake of the pandemic the Hon’ble Supreme Court extended the limitation in all proceedings irrespective of limitation prescribed under the general law or special laws w.e.f. 15/03/2020 till further orders. The said order came to be passed by the Apex Court to ameliorate the situation faced by the litigants and the advocates in Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re. By relying on it, the contention was that the period for fling of written statement can be extended upto 120 days from the date of service of summons and, thereafter, on failure to file the written statement, the right of defendants stood forfeited. The statutory period for filing the written statement, is permitted to be extended at the discretion of the Court, on sufficient cause being shown, and the written statement can be permitted to be filed within a period of 120 days. On expiry of the period of 30 days for filing of the written statement, the learned Judge at his discretion, has extended it from time to time and by the order passed on 11/03/2020, it came to be extended till 23/04/2020. It was practically impossible to file the written statement on the said date, since there was a complete shutdown of the functioning of the Courts as well as on account of the lockdown being imposed, the movement of the Advocates, litigants and their access to the Court was restricted. The period of 120 days, in any case, was available for filing of the written statement and the said period expired on 09/05/2020, but since the scenario continued to remain in force, on 02/07/2020, under an assumption that in view of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, if the limitation was to expire any time after 15/03/2020, it came to be extended, thereby the limitation for fling of the written statement of the defendants also stood extended, it was prayed that the written statement be taken on record, construing it to be filed within limitation.
Respondent: On the outbreak of the Covid pandemic, the Courts restricted its timing and specifically the Courts in Pune functioned for limited hours and from 25/03/2020, the lockdown was declared in the entire country and all the Courts practically shut and continued to function only for extremely urgent matters. Hence, it was not possible for the defendants to file the written statement and though the period of 120 days expired on 09/05/2020, the written statement could not be brought on record. On 02/07/2020, an application vide Eth.97 came to be filed, seeking permission to bring the written statement on record, which was opposed by the plaintiff on the ground of delay. The learned District Judge (Commercial Division), Pune, on hearing the rival parties, rejected the application and ordered that the matter shall proceed without written statement of defendant Nos.1 and 6.
Observations of the Court
The Bench observed that:
“By referring to the “prescribed period” appearing in Section 4, it was held that it cannot be construed to mean anything other than the ‘period of limitation’. Any period beyond the prescribed period during which the Court or Tribunal has discretion to allow a person to institute the proceedings cannot be taken to be the prescribed period. It was, therefore, held that the appellants cannot claim the benefit of the order passed by the Court on 23/03/2020 for enlarging, even the period upto which the delay can be condoned.”
Judgment
Accordingly the appeal came to be dismissed.
Case Name: Babasaheb Raosaheb Kobarne & Anr. vs Pyrotek India Private Limited & Ors.
Citation: Writ Petition No. 6191 of 2021
Bench: Justice Bharati Dangre
Decided on: 14th December 2021
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure
0 Comments