Calcutta High Court
Strong Towers Private Limited vs Karnani Constructions And Ors on 14 May, 2025
Author: Ravi Krishan Kapur
Bench: Ravi Krishan Kapur
OIPD-2
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
ORIGINAL SIDE
Intellectual Property Rights Division
(Commercial Division)
CS-COM/649/2024
IA NO: GA-COM/4/2025
STRONG TOWERS PRIVATE LIMITED
VS
KARNANI CONSTRUCTIONS AND ORS
Before:
The Hon'ble Justice RAVI KRISHAN KAPUR
Date: 14th May, 2025
Appearance:
Mr. Sourajit Dasgupta, Adv.
Mr. Abhimonyu Roy, Adv.
Mr. Aasish Choudhury, Adv.
Mrs. Uma Bagree, Adv.
..for the plaintiff.
Mr. Varun Kothari, Adv.
Mr. Vikash Chaubey, Adv.
Mr. Udit Agarwal, Adv.
..for the defenedant nos. 1,2,3
The Court: The suit has appeared at the instance of the defendants. The suit
was mentioned yesterday in view of the urgency pleaded by the defendants.
It was submitted on behalf of the defendants that the Department was not
accepting the Written Statement and the time to file the same was due to expire. It
was also submitted that a Co-ordinate Bench had granted leave on 8 th May, 2025
to the defendants to file their written statement, subject to the acceptance by the
Court. However, due to the fault of the Advocate-on-Record, the defendants had
been unable to file the same by 8th May, 2025. In such circumstances, this Court
had inter-alia directed as follows: "Leave is granted to the defendants to file the
written statement subject to compliance with all formalities and acceptance by the
Court."
Order 8 Rule I of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 provides as follows:
[1.Written Statement.--The Defendant shall, within thirty days from the
date of service of summons on him, present a written statement of his defence:
Provided that where the defendant fails to file the written statement within the
said period of thirty days, he shall be allowed to file the same on such other
day, as may be specified by the Court, for reasons to be recorded in writing,
but which shall not be later than ninety days from the date of service of
summons.]
[Provided that where the defendant fails to file the written statement
within the said period of thirty days, he shall be allowed to file the written
statement on such other day, as may be specified by the Court, for reasons to
be recorded in writing and on payment of such costs as the Court deems fit,
but which shall not be later than one hundred twenty days from the date of
service of summons and on expiry of one hundred twenty days from the date
of service of summons, the defendant shall forfeit the right to file the written
statement and the Court shall not allow the written statement to be taken on
record.]
On a bare reading of the above section, it would be evident that there are
fixed timelines prescribed under the section. The above provision also
contemplates the Written Statement being filed within a period of 30 days. In
addition, the proviso contemplates an additional 90 day period upon the Court
recording reasons in writing. In SCG Contracts India Pvt Ltd. vs K.S Chamankar
Infrastructure Pvt Ltd & Ors. (2019) 12 SCC 210, it has been held as follows:
"A perusal of these provisions would show that ordinarily a written
statement is to be filed within a period of 30 days. However, a grace period of
a further 90 days is granted which the Court may employ for reasons to be
recorded in writing and payment of such costs as it deems fit to allow such
written statement to come on record. What is of great importance is the fact
that beyond 120 days from the date of service of summons, the defendant
shall forfeit the right to file the written statement and the Court shall not allow
the written statement to be taken on record. This is further buttressed by the
proviso in Order 8 Rule 10 also adding that the court has no further power to
extend the time beyond this period of 120 days."
It also transpires that though the defendants had taken out a Summons, the
same was neither signed nor filed before this Court yesterday when the above
direction was passed. The endorsement on the Summons evidences that the same
had been submitted before the Department only at 3.10 p.m. The Summons be
kept with the records.
As such, there was no application before this Court on which the order of
extension could have been passed. Significantly, the plaintiff who was present in
Court, intentionally or unintentionally did not bring these facts to the notice of this
Court and unequivocally consented and acquiesced to the filing of the Written
Statement.
The more sagacious judgments highlight the role of Advocates as officers of
Court in the dispensation of justice. The mistake of trust and good faith was mine.
I stand corrected. A palpable mistake, violating justice, reason, and law, must be
corrected, no matter by whom it may have been made. Mistakes and errors of such
nature if adhered to tend to be repeated indefinitely. As Jackson, J. had once
observed "I see no reason as to why I should be consciously wrong today because I
was unconsciously wrong yesterday", Massachusetts vs. United States 333 U.S.
611 @ 639 [1948].
There was a clear attempt by the defendants to mislead the Court and
distort the true and correct facts of the case. The fact of the proviso being
applicable and the necessity to provide reasons in writing goes to the root of the
matter and makes the direction dated 13 July 2025 a nullity and non est to say the
least.
In view of the above, the direction dated 13th April, 2025 stands recalled.
Liberty is granted to the parties to take appropriate steps in accordance with
law.
(RAVI KRISHAN KAPUR, J.)
Arsad, AR(CR)
