In that view of the matter, the period from
15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall have to be excluded for
the purposes of limitation as may be prescribed under any
General or SPECIAL LAWS in respect of all judicial or
quasi-judicial proceedings. The Commercial Courts Act,
2015 being a Special Law, the said order shall also be
applicable with respect to the limitation prescribed
under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 also.
In view of the above and for the reasons stated
above and more particularly when the 120 days period
expired in the present case on 09.05.2020 which was
during the aforesaid period as prescribed by this Court
in the aforesaid order, the High Court ought to have
excluded the aforesaid period for the purpose of filing
the written statement and ought to have permitted to
take the written statement on record. The impugned
judgment and order passed by the High Court refusing to
condone the delay and take on record the written
statement is hereby quashed and set aside. It is directed
that the written statement, already filed, be taken on
record and the same be considered in accordance with law.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2022
(@ Special Leave Petition (C) No. 2522/2022)
BABASAHEB RAOSAHEB KOBARNE & ANR. Vs PYROTEK INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS.
Dated: MAY 09, 2022
Leave granted.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
judgment and order dated 13.12.2021 passed by the High
Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No.6191
of 2021, by which the High Court has dismissed the said
writ petition and has confirmed the order passed by the
learned Trial Court, refusing to take the written
statement on record and has refused to condone the delay
in filing the written statement, the original defendants
have preferred the present appeal.
From the impugned judgment and order passed by the
High Court, it appears that the High Court has refused to
condoned the delay and take on record the written
statement on the ground that the period of 120 days
within which the written statement could have been taken
on record, expired on 09.05.2020 which was during the
lock-down imposed. Therefore, the High Court has refused
to condone the delay and take the written statement on
record.
Having heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the respective parties and having considered order
dated 10.01.2022 passed by this Court in Miscellaneous
Application No.21/2022 by which the following order was
passed and order dated 04.01.2022 passed by this Court in
SLP (C) No.17298/2021 in the case of Centaur
Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Standford
Laboratories Pvt. Ltd., the impugned order passed by the
High Court is unsustainable. The operative portion of
the order passed by this Court in Miscellaneous
Application No.21/2022 reads as under -
“I. The order dated 23.03.2020 is restored and
in continuation of the subsequent orders dated
08.03.2021, 27.04.2021 and 23.09.2021. It is
directed that the period from 15.03.2020 till
28.02.2022 shall stand excluded for the purposes
of limitation as may be prescribed under any
general or special laws in respect of all
judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings.
II. Consequently, the balance period of
limitation remaining as on 03.10.2021, if any,
shall become available with effect from
01.03.2022.
III. In cases where the limitation would have
expired during the period between 15.03.2020
till 28.02.2022, notwithstanding the actual
balance period of limitation remaining, all
persons shall have a limitation period of 90
days from 01.03.2022. In the event the actual
balance period of limitation remaining, with
effect from 01.03.2022 is greater than 90 days,
that longer period shall apply.
IV. It is further clarified that the period
from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall also stand
excluded in computing the periods prescribed
under Sections 23 (4) and 29A of the Arbitration
and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12 A of the
Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and
(c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe
period(s) of limitation for instituting
proceedings, outer limits (within which the
court or tribunal can condone delay) and
termination of proceedings.”
In that view of the matter, the period from
15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall have to be excluded for
the purposes of limitation as may be prescribed under any
General or SPECIAL LAWS in respect of all judicial or
quasi-judicial proceedings. The Commercial Courts Act,
2015 being a Special Law, the said order shall also be
applicable with respect to the limitation prescribed
under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 also.
In view of the above and for the reasons stated
above and more particularly when the 120 days period
expired in the present case on 09.05.2020 which was
during the aforesaid period as prescribed by this Court
in the aforesaid order, the High Court ought to have
excluded the aforesaid period for the purpose of filing
the written statement and ought to have permitted to
take the written statement on record. The impugned
judgment and order passed by the High Court refusing to
condone the delay and take on record the written
statement is hereby quashed and set aside. It is directed
that the written statement, already filed, be taken on
record and the same be considered in accordance with law.
It is reported that an interim injunction
application is pending before the learned Trial Court
since long. We direct the learned Trial Court to finally
decide and dispose of the interim injunction application
at the earliest and preferably within a period of six
weeks from the date of receipt of the present order.
The Appeal is accordingly allowed to the aforesaid
extent. No costs.
………………………………………J.
[M.R. SHAH]
……………………………………J.
[B.V. NAGARATHNA]
NEW DELHI
MAY 09, 2022
No comments:
Post a Comment