Calcutta High Court
Hemant Kanoria And Anr vs Kpmg Assurance And Consulting Services ... on 29 August, 2024
OD-22
ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
IA No. GA/22/2024
In CS/242/2023
HEMANT KANORIA AND ANR.
-VS-
KPMG ASSURANCE AND CONSULTING SERVICES LLP AND ORS
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE KRISHNA RAO
Date : August 29, 2024.
Appearance:
Mr. Jishnu Chwodhury, Adv.
Mr. Soumalya Ganguli, Adv.
Mr. Abhidipto Tarafder, Adv.
Mr. Shubrajyoti Mookerji, Adv.
Mr. Naman Chaudhury, Adv.
... for the plaintiffs
Mr. Rupak Ghosh, Adv.
Mr. Jayanta Sengupta, Adv.
Mr. Rahul Auddy, Adv.
... for the defendant no.1
The Court: Mr. Jishnu Chowdhury, learned counsel, is appearing for
the plaintiffs.
Mr. Rupak Ghosh, learned counsel, is appearing for the defendant
no.1.
The defendant no.1 has filed the present application being
GA/22/2024 praying for condoning the delay in filing the written
statement.
Counsel for the defendant no.1 submits that after receipt of the writ
of summons the defendant no.1 has forwarded the said copy to the regional
office at Gurgaon. Subsequently, the office of the defendant no.1 has
consulted with the Solicitor of Bombay and the Solicitor of Bombay had
asked for the details and the particulars of the suit. In the meantime, the
plaintiffs have filed an application for grant of interim order. The defendant
no.1 was engaged for filing affidavit in opposition in the interlocutory
application due to which the defendant no.1 could not file the written
statement within time.
Counsel for the defendant no.1 has also relied upon a judgment
passed by this Court in the similar matter reported in 2024 SCC OnLine
CAL 6431 wherein several defendants have filed the application for
extension of time to file written statement and by an order dated 4th July,
2024 this Court has condoned the delay and allowed the defendants to file
the written statement subject to payment of cost of Rs. 5000/-.
Counsel for the plaintiffs raised objection and submitted that the
cause which has been shown by the defendant no.1 is not sufficient to
condone the delay. It is not a good ground that the interlocutory application
was pending due to which the defendant no.1 has not filed the written
statement within the period prescribed under law.
Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. Perused the
materials on record.
This Court finds that the defendant no.1 has shown sufficient cause
for non filing of the written statement within the prescribed time and
furthermore, the other defendants have filed application for extension of
time and this Court has allowed their application for filing the written
statement by imposing cost of Rs.5000/-.
Considering the above, GA/22/2024 is allowed by directing the
defendant no.1 to file the written statement within ten (10) days subject to
payment of cost of Rs.5000/-.
GA/22/2024 is disposed of.
(KRISHNA RAO, J.)
RS
