Calcutta High Court
Jcc India Pvt Ltd And Anr vs Steel Authority Of India Limited (Sail) ... on 10 February, 2025
OC-5
ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
COMMERCIAL DIVISION
ORIGINAL SIDE
CS-COM/743/2024
IA No. GA-COM/1/2024, GA-COM/2/2024, GA-COM/3/2024
JCC INDIA PVT LTD AND ANR
-VS-
STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED (SAIL) AND ORS
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE KRISHNA RAO
Date : February 10, 2025.
Appearance :
Mr. Nirmalya Dasgupta, Adv.
Mr. R. L. Mitra, Adv.
Mrs. Priyanka Dhar, Adv.
... for the plaintiffs
Mr. Arijit Basu, Adv.
... for the defendant nos.1, 2, 4, 5 and 6
In Re : GA-COM/2/2024
The Court: Mr. Nirmalya Dasgupta, learned Advocate, is appearing
for the plaintiffs.
Mr. Arijit Basu, learned Advocate, is appearing for the defendant
nos. 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6.
Defendant nos. 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 have filed the present application
being GA-COM/2/2024 in CS-COM/743/2024 praying for extension of
time to file the written statement.
Counsel for the defendants submits that the defendants have
received the writ of summons on 30th July, 2024 in terms of the order
passed by this Court dated 30th July, 2024. Counsel for the defendants
submits that on receipt of the copy of the plaint and the documents, the
defendants have pursued the matter for filing the written statement but
various documents pertaining to the said suit are located at Bokaro and as
such, the defendants could not file the written statement either within the
prescribed period of 30 days or within the prescribed period of 120 days.
Counsel for the defendants submits that the written statement
was affirmed on 27th November, 2024 and on the same date the defendants
have filed the present application. Counsel for the defendants submits that
120 days for filing the written statement expired on 27th November, 2024
but the defendants could not file the written statement. Counsel for the
defendants submits that as the defendants have affirmed the written
statement within the outer period of 120 days and as such, the written
statement may be accepted.
Per contra, learned counsel for the plaintiffs has raised objection
and submitted that mere affirmation of the written statement cannot be
said that the defendants have not filed the written statement within 120
days.
Counsel for the plaintiffs submits that the defendants even have
not taken any leave from this Court to file the written statement in the
department within 120 days after affirmation of written statement.
Counsel for the plaintiffs has relied upon an unreported judgment
passed in CS-COM/494/2024 in GA-COM/4/2024 dated 4th October, 2024
in the case of Raijada Marbles and Ors vs. Royalbuilt Infrastructure
Private Limited and Ors wherein this Court by relying upon the judgment
passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SCG Contracts India
(P) Ltd. Vs. K. S. Chamankar Infrastructure (P) Ltd reported in (2019)
12 SCC 210 has not accepted the written statement and the order passed
by this Court in the above matter has been duly affirmed by the Hon'ble
Division Bench of this Court dated 13th January, 2025. He submits that in
the present case, the defendants have not filed the written statement within
the outer period of 120 days and as such, no written statement can be
accepted.
Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. Perused the
materials on record.
On 30th July, 2024 when the matter was taken up for hearing,
learned counsel for the defendants has received the writ of summons and
this Court has dispensed with the service of writ of summons upon the
defendants. Accordingly, time to file the written statement starts from the
date when the defendants have received the writ of summons. Admittedly,
the defendants have not filed the written statement within the outer period
of 120 days. Thus, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
SCG Contracts India (P) Ltd. (Supra), this Court finds that this Court has
no authority to accept the written statement filed after 120 days.
Accordingly, GA-COM/2/2024 is dismissed.
In Re : GA-COM/3/2024
Learned counsel for the defendants has concluded his argument
in connection with GA-COM/3/2024.
In reply, Counsel for the plaintiff has made appropriate
submission but due to paucity of time, hearing could not be completed.
Accordingly, the case is adjourned.
Let the matter appear on 18th February, 2025 for further hearing.
Counsel for the plaintiffs submits that interim order granted
earlier which is going to be expired on 14th February, 2025 and prays for
extension of interim order.
In view of the submission made by the Counsel for the plaintiffs,
interim order is extended till 25th February, 2025 or until further orders,
whichever is earlier.
(KRISHNA RAO, J.)
Sbghosh
