[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Bombay Iron And Steel Labour Board vs State Bank Of India on 11 March, 2026
Author: Abhay Ahuja
Bench: Abhay Ahuja
43. comss 91-22.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
COMMERCIAL SUMMARY SUIT NO. 91 OF 2022
Bombay Iron and Steel Labour Board. ...Plaintiff
V/s.
State Bank of India ...Defendant
Mr. Sanjay P. Shinde for the Plaintiff.
Mr. Jay Bhatia for the Defendant.
CORAM : ABHAY AHUJA, J.
DATE : 11th MARCH, 2026
P.C. :
1. When the matter is called out, Mr. Bhatia, learned Counsel
appears for the Defendant-State Bank of India and submits that
pursuant to the order dated 22 nd January, 2026, the affidavit dated 3 rd
February, 2026 has been filed, to which affidavit, communication dated
21st January, 2026 from the Defendant-Bank to their Advocate has been
annexed and which clearly indicates that the earmarking of an amount
of Rs. 24,59,53,787/- has been done on 25 th June, 2025, which is
within the period of three weeks granted vide order dated 9 th June,
2025 of this Court.
2. Mr. Bhatia, however, submits that after the earmarking, the
written statement was to be filed within a period of four weeks, but the
same could not be done as the Defendant-Bank had engaged a new
Advocate i.e. the present Advocate and since the papers were
43. comss 91-22.doc
voluminous the logistics in obtaining the papers from the erstwhile
Advocate and the no objection certificate was taking time, after which
the vakalatnama was filed on 26 th August, 2025. Mr. Bhatia submits
that since the matter was complex, involving tricky questions of law
and facts and out of which separate independent criminal proceedings
have also emanated, time was consumed for the new Advocate to study,
search and obtain instructions and understand the matter in order to
protect the rights and interest of the Defendant-bank. That in the
meanwhile, the branch manager of the Defendant-bank was also
transferred and the incumbent branch manager took charge only in
May, 2025 and was totally unaware of the case. That the new branch
manager has taken some time to get acquainted with the facts of the
case and to provide necessary instructions to the present Advocate. Mr.
Bhatia submits that the delay in filing the written statement was not
intentional and the Defendant is not trying to delay the proceedings
and the matter. It is submitted that the Defendant has a good chance of
succeeding on the merits in the matter and that, therefore, the delay in
filing the written statement be condoned and the written statement on
behalf of the Defendant-Bank be taken on record. Mr. Bhatia submits
that this Court may put the Defendant to any terms while condoning
the delay in filing the written statement.
43. comss 91-22.doc
3. On the other hand, Mr. Shinde, learned Counsel appearing the
Plaintiff has filed a reply opposing the request for condonation of delay
submitting that the written statement is not even ready as the same has
not been annexed to the affidavit dated 3 rd February, 2026. Mr. Shinde
submits that in the event this Court is inclined to condone the delay, the
same be subject to payment of costs.
4. I have heard the learned Counsel and considered their
submissions.
5. The order dated 9th June, 2025, had partly decreed the Suit to
the extent of Rs. 11,40,46,213/- and as regards the balance amount as
well as with regard to the issue of interest, leave to defend the Suit was
granted to the Defendant-bank, subject to the Defendant-Bank
earmarking it in its books Rs. 24,59,53,787/- within a period of three
weeks. The three weeks' period expired on 30 th June, 2025. The
earmarking admittedly has been done on 25 th June, 2025, which is
within the time granted by this Court.
6. By the said order dated 9th June, 2025, this Court had granted
four weeks' time to the Defendant to file written statement, which four
weeks were to be counted from the date of earmarking. That period
ended on 23rd July, 2025.
43. comss 91-22.doc
7. It has been submitted on behalf of the Defendant-bank that since
there was a change in the lawyer and thereafter, the earlier branch
manager was also transferred and since the matter was complex,
involving tricky questions of law and facts, time was required to study
the matter and to take instructions from the new branch manager and
that, therefore, there has been a delay, which is not intentional. It has
been submitted that since the Defendant has a good chance to succeed
on merits, this Court may permit filing of the written statement, after
condoning the delay on terms that the Court may impose.
8. Mr. Shinde, learned Counsel appearing for the Plaintiff has
opposed the same, submitting that no written statement is ready as the
same has not been annexed to the affidavit of the Defendant dated 3 rd
February, 2026.
9. After perusal of the affidavit dated 3 rd February, 2026 of the
Defendant-Bank, this Court has inquired from the learned Counsel
appearing for the Defendant-Bank as to whether any written statement
is ready to be filed and Mr. Bhatia, learned Counsel appearing for the
Defendant-Bank after searching his papers submits that there is an old
draft of the written statement of the year 2023 but no written
statement is ready.
43. comss 91-22.doc
10. If that be the case, it is quite surprising to note that the affidavit
dated 3rd February, 2026 proceeds on the basis as if the written
statement is ready and only needs permission of this Court to be filed,
which is factually not the case and that is the reason why Mr. Shinde,
learned Counsel for the Plaintiff has opposed the request for extension
of time by the Defendant-Bank to file the written statement.
11. The pleadings in paragraphs 7, 9 and 10 of the affidavit dated 3 rd
February, 2026 of the Defendant-bank to that extent appear to be
incorrect. The Advocate appearing on behalf of the Defendant-bank
ought to have taken care before filing the affidavit, which has not been
done.
12. Although this Court does not desire to conclude that the said
affidavit to the extent of non filing of the written statement in time is
misleading, however, since this Court has held on 9 th June, 2025 that
conditional leave with respect to the balance amount as well as interest
be granted, this Court does not deem it appropriate to shut out the
Defendant for the lapse of the Advocate. No doubt there has been a
delay, and also no doubt that the written statement is not ready.
43. comss 91-22.doc
13. Both the learned Counsel have submitted that the Defendant-
bank may be put to terms in permitting the request for condoning the
delay in filing the written statement.
14. Accordingly, subject to payment of costs of Rs. 25,000/- by the
Defendant-bank to the Plaintiff within a period of two weeks, let the
written statement be filed within a period of two weeks thereafter, with
copy to the others.
15. Subject to the above, list the Suit for framing of issues on 29th
April, 2026.
16. Let draft issues be exchanged in advance.
Digitally
signed by
NIKITA
(ABHAY AHUJA, J.)
NIKITA YOGESH
YOGESH GADGIL
GADGIL Date:
2026.03.12
14:52:42
+0530
