Calcutta High Court
Exide Industries Limited vs Amara Raja Energy And Mobility Limited on 22 September, 2025
Author: Ravi Krishan Kapur
Bench: Ravi Krishan Kapur
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
ORIGINAL SIDE
(Intellectual Property Right Division)
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur
IA NO. GA-COM/3/2025
In IP-COM/18/2025
EXIDE INDUSTRIES LIMITED
Vs
AMARA RAJA ENERGY AND MOBILITY LIMITED
For the petitioner : Mr. Adarsh Ramanujan, Advocate
Mr. Sarosij Dasgupta, Advocate
Ms. Shreya Singh, Advocate
Mr. Suryaneel Das, Advocate
Ms. Amrita Panja Moullick, Advocate
For the respondent : Mr. Ratnanko Banerji, Senior Advocate
Mr. Sayan Roy Choudhury, Advocate
Mr. Kironjit Majumder, Advocate
Ms. Sonia Nandy, Advocate
Mr. Dipro Dawn, Advocate
Ms. Mallika Bothra, Advocate
Heard on : 22.09.2025
Judgment on : 22.09.2025
Ravi Krishan Kapur, J.:
1. This is an application for condonation of delay in filing of the Written
Statement. The suit was instituted before the Commercial Division of this
Court on 12 March, 2025. The Writ of Summons was received by the
defendant on 26 April, 2025. The period of 120 days from the date of
service of the Writ of Summons expired on Sunday, 24 August, 2025. On
25th August, 2025, this Court granted leave to the defendant to file an
application (upon short service) in support of the Summons praying for
extension of time to file the written statement (which included the written
statement).
2. On behalf of the defendant, it is contended that the delay in filing of the
written statement was primarily on the ground that the records of the
suit were voluminous consisting of 11 (eleven) volumes. Additionally,
both parties were contesting the interlocutory proceedings. Moreover, the
defendant has its registered office at Tirupati and the corporate office at
Hyderabad. Their Advocates are based at New Delhi. Thus, some more
time than usual was required in the preparation of the written statement.
In any view of the matter, the written statement had been served on the
defendant within the 120 day time period and an application seeking
extension of time was filed on 25 August, 2025. As such, the prayer for
condonation is liable be allowed.
3. On behalf of the plaintiff, it is contended that there are no grounds
whatsoever justifying the condonation of delay in the filing of the written
statement. The written statement had not been filed within the 30 day
time period. There are no effective steps which have been taken for filing
of the written statement within the extended 90 days period which justify
condonation. In such circumstances, there are no grounds made out in
the application seeking condonation of delay and this application is liable
to be rejected.
4. The proviso to Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (as
amended) is as follows:
"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 and twenty days from the
date of service of summons and on expiry of one hundred and
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 to be taken on record".
5. A reading of the above proviso makes it clear that under the amended
provision, the written statement is to be filed within a period of 30 days
from the date of receipt of the Writ of Summons. However, an extended
period of 90 days is granted for which the Court is obliged to record
reasons in writing as it deems fit to allow such written statement to be
filed. A Court is not permitted to allow the Written Statement to be taken
on record after expiry of the mandatory 120 days period. [SCG Contracts
(India) Private Limited versus K.S. Chamankar Infrastructure Private
Limited and Other (2019) 12 Supreme Court Case 210].
6. The admitted facts of the case would show that the time to file the
written statement expired on 24 August, 2025 which was Sunday.
(section 10 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 read with section 4 of the
Limitation Act, 1963) On 25 August, 2025 i.e., Monday, this Court had
granted liberty to the defendant to effect short service of the Master's
Summons supported by an application seeking extension of time to file
the Written Statement which had been affirmed on 22 August, 2025. A
copy of the Master's Summons alongwith the application (which included
the Written Statement) was served on the defendant on that day. In such
view of the matter, the question of there being no Written Statement on
record within the 120 day period is erroneous and inaccurate.
7. In an adversarial system, it is always preferable for a party to contest a
matter on merits rather than gain an advantage by way of not permitting
their opponent to file its pleading. Of course, in view of the embargo this
does not contemplate an extension being granted beyond the mandatory
120 day period. If the Written Statement has been served on the
defendant within the 120 day period and a copy of an application seeking
extension is on record, the Court is not to hold a mini-trial to adjudicate
on the issue of condonation. In a matter of such nature, when the parties
are bitterly contesting the interlocutory proceedings, the defendant
cannot possibly benefit by not filing of the Written Statement to an extent
that its right gets forfeited. On the contrary, refusing to condone the
delay within 120 day period defeats the cause of justice. It is not
necessary for the defendant to explain every day's delay, or every hour's
delay or every second's delay. In such matters the Courts ought to adopt
a rational, common sense and pragmatic approach in considering the
plea for condonation. If the written statement is on record and an
application for extension of time has been filed within the 120 day
period, technical considerations cannot outweigh the cause of
substantial justice moreso when the delay in filing the Written Statement
is unintentional and not deliberate. [Rajendra Kumar Kothari & Anr. Vs.
Varun Kumar Kothari (unreported decision of the Division Bench, High
Court at Calcutta dated 17th February, 2025 in A.P.O. No. 106 of 2023);
SKM Agro Private Limited vs. Paritosh Biswas (unreported decision of the
High Court at Calcutta dated 15th September, 2022 in IA No. GA/2/2022
in CS/1/2022); M/s. Ashok Exporters and Importers & Ors. vs. M/s. Imax
Infrastructure Private Limited and Ors. (unreported decision of the High
Court at Calcutta dated 12th November, 2024 in IA NO.GA-COM/2/2024
in CS-COM.534/202)]; Skipper Limited vs. Surender Kumar Goyal
(unreported decision of the High Court at Calcutta dated 22nd November,
2024 in IA NO. GA-COM/4/2024 in CS-COM/562/2024).
8. In view of the above, there are justifiable and cogent grounds to condone
the delay in filing of the Written Statement. The defendant has
sufficiently explained the delay in filing of the written statement.
9. The decisions cited on behalf of the plaintiff in Mohan Proofing Co. & Anr.
Vs. Om Shanti Realtors & Ors. [unreported decision dated 4th July, 2019
passed by the High Court at Bombay in Commercial Suit No. 241 of
2019] is distinguishable and inapplicable to the facts of this case.
10. In such circumstances, there shall be an order in terms of prayers (a)
and (b) of the Master's Summons.
11. With the above direction GA-COM/3/2025 stands allowed.
12. Let this suit appear in the monthly list of November, 2025 under the
heading "For Case Management Hearing of Suits". The parties are
directed to comply with all necessary formalities and file their Suggested
Issues on the returnable date.
(Ravi Krishan Kapur, J.)
S.Bag
