Delhi High Court
Ravi And Singh Communication vs Sify Technologies Limited on 6 December, 2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 6th December, 2017
+ FAO(OS) (COMM) 192/2017
RAVI AND SINGH COMMUNICATION ..... Appellant
Through Mr. Pravir K. Jain, Adv.
versus
SIFY TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Amitesh C. Mishra, Adv. and
Mr. Pankaj Singh Adv. for respondent
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
G.S.SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
1. The present appeal is directed against the order dated 8th
August, 2017 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court by
which, the written statement filed by the defendant has been taken
on record on payment of cost of Rs.50,000/-. It is also the grievance
of the appellant that on 8th August, 2017 time was extended for
filing the written statement beyond the prescribed period of 120
days.
2. Mr. Jain relies on a decision rendered by the Single Judge of
this Court in the case of OKU Tech Private Limited vs. Sangeet
Agarwal and Ors. CS (OS) 3390/2015, decided on 11th August,
2016, wherein it has been held that time for filing written statement
cannot be extended beyond a period of 120 days. Mr. Jain also
contends that the impugned order is devoid of any reason for
granting extension of time beyond 30 days. Mr. Jain contends that
there is no reason for granting the extension beyond 30 days as no
application was filed by the defendant seeking extension of time.
Mr. Jain submits that an application being IA No. 11469/2017 was
filed by the plaintiff under Section 16 read with Schedule of the
Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial
Appellate Division of the High Courts Act, 2015 for taking off the
record the written statement filed by the defendant after expiry of
120 days of service of summons on defendant. This application
came up for hearing on 27th September, 2017. However, leave was
sought to withdraw the application to challenge the order dated 8 th
August, 2017.
3. Heard. The present appeal, in our view is not maintainable
under Section 16 read with Schedule of the Commercial Courts,
Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of the
High Courts Act, 2015. In view of the judgment of the Division
Bench of this Court in the case of HPL (India) Limited and Ors. vs.
QRG Enterprises and Ors. in FAO (OS) (COMM) No. 12/2017
and CM No. 1002/2017, decided on 14th February, 2017. At this
stage, Mr. Jain, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits
that the petitioner may be granted leave to either revive the IA No.
11469/2017 or may be allowed to file a fresh application before the
learned Single Judge.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent however,
submits that the written statement was filed much before 120 days
and there is no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single
Judge granting time to file written statement as the documents were
not supplied along with plaint and the same were supplied only on
13th May, 2017 as reflected in the order of the Joint Registrar dated
19th July, 2017.
5. While the appeal is dismissed, liberty as prayed is granted.
It would be open for the appellant to revive the IA No. 11469/2017
or make a fresh application before the Single Judge.
CM No. 40429/2017
Dismissed as infructuous.
G.S.SISTANI, J
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
DECEMBER 06, 2017/aky
