Delhi High Court
M/S. Lifestar Pharma Private ... vs M/S. Starlife Healthcare on 18 April, 2022
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEVANSHU JOSHI
Signing Date:20.04.2022
07:19:55
$~10
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 18th April, 2022
+ CS (COMM) 62/2020 & I.As. 1844/2020, 2953/2021, 3480/2021
M/S. LIFESTAR PHARMA PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Plaintiff
Through: Ms. Archana Sachdeva, Advocate.
versus
M/S. STARLIFE HEALTHCARE ..... Defendant
Through: Mr. Amit Singh Gulia, Advocate.
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
I.A.3480/2021 (for delay in filing written statement) & I.A.2953/2021
(for delay in filing affidavit of admission/denial)
2. These are two applications filed by the Defendant seeking
condonation of delay in filing the written statement and in filing the affidavit
of admission/denial.
3. The Defendant had first entered appearance in this matter on 10th
February, 2020, which was the first date of listing of the suit. On the said
date, the Defendant was directed to file its written statement. Thereafter, the
written statement and affidavit of admission/denial ought to have been filed
within the prescribed period, as per the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
However, the written statement and the affidavit of admission/denial were
filed only on 23rd September, 2020, i.e., with a delay. On the next date
before Court, being 1st December, 2020, the Defendant did not appear and
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEVANSHU JOSHI
Signing Date:20.04.2022
07:19:55
Court notice was issued, post which the present applications were filed by
the Defendant.
4. Ld. counsel for the Plaintiff opposes the applications, relying upon the
judgment of the Supreme Court in Sagufa Ahmed & Ors. v. Upper Assam
Plywood Products Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. [Civil Appeal Nos.3007-3008 of 2020,
decided on 18th September, 2020]. The relevant portion of the said judgment
reads as under:
"19. But we do not think that the appellants can take
refuge under the above order. What was extended by
the above order of this Court was only "the period of
limitation" and not the period upto which delay
can be condoned in exercise of discretion
conferred by the statute. The above order passed by
this Court was intended to benefit vigilant litigants
who were prevented due to the pandemic and the
lockdown, from initiating proceedings within the
period of limitation prescribed by general or special
law. It is needless to point out that the law of
limitationfinds its root in two latin maxims, one of
which is Vigilantibus Non Dormientibus Jura
Subveniunt which means that the law will assist only
those who are vigilant about their rights and not those
who sleep over them.
XXX
23. Therefore, the expression "prescribed period"
appearing in Section 4 cannot be construed to mean
anything other than the period of limitation. Any
period beyond the prescribed period, during which the
Court or Tribunal has the discretion to allow a person
to institute the proceedings, cannot be taken to
be "prescribed period"."
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEVANSHU JOSHI
Signing Date:20.04.2022
07:19:55
5. Accordingly, she submits that as per Sagufa Ahmed (supra), since the
period of limitation had expired before 15th March, 2020 in this case, the
delay cannot be condoned.
6. On the other hand, ld. counsel for the Defendant relies upon the
judgment of the Madras High Court in Stanford Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. v.
Centaur Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd and Anr. [C.S. (Comm.Div) No.684 of
2019, decided on 20th April, 2021]. In Stanford (supra), the Defendant had
filed their written statement in July, 2020, when the 30 days' time limit for
filing the same had expired in February, 2020. The limit for condonation of
delay had expired in May, 2020. In this decision, after considering the
judgment in Sagufa Ahmed (supra), the order of the Supreme Court dated
8th March, 2021, in Suo Moto Writ (Civil) No. 3 of 2020 titled In Re:
Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, has been relied upon, to condone
the delay in filing the written statement. The Madras High Court has
observed that the condonation of delay would also apply in computing
prescribed periods within which Courts or Tribunals can condone delay. The
relevant extract of Stanford (supra), also examining the Supreme Court
decisions, reads as under:
"9. While considering whether the extension of
time meant by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its order
dated 23.03.2020 covers the period upto which delay
can be condoned in exercise of discretion conferred by
the statute, a three judges bench of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court clarified in Sagufa Ahmed -vs- Upper
Assam Plywood Products Pvt. Limited cited supra as
below:-
Xxx
11. If these two judgments are alone taken into
consideration, the written statement filed by the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEVANSHU JOSHI
Signing Date:20.04.2022
07:19:55
defendants is beyond the period of limitation
prescribed and delay in filing the written statement
after the expiry of the time prescribed as Limitation
cannot be condoned beyond 120 days from the date of
receipt of the suit summons even, in the light of the
order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed on
23.03.2020 "In Re Cognizance for extension of
Limitation".
12. But then, the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its
order dated 08.03.2021, while disposing the Suo Motu
Writ Petition (Civil) No.3 of 2020, had given quietus to
the contentious issue by issuing the following
directions:-
"2. We have considered the suggestions of the
learned Attorney General of India regarding the
future course of action. We deem it appropriate to
issue the following directions:-
1. In computing the period of limitation for any
suit, appeal, application or proceeding, the
period from 15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021 shall
stand excluded. Consequently, the balance
period of limitation remaining as on 15.03.2020,
if any, shall become available with effect from
15.03.2021.
2. In cases where the limitation would have
expired during the period between 15.03.2020 till
14.03.2021, notwithstanding the actual balance
period of limitation remaining all persons shall
have a limitation period of 90 days from
15.03.2021. In the event the actual balance
period of limitation remaining with effect from
15.03.2021, is greater than 90 days, that longer
period shall apply.
3. The period from 15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021
shall also stand excluded in computing the
periods prescribed under Sections 23 (4) and
29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,
1996, Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEVANSHU JOSHI
Signing Date:20.04.2022
07:19:55
1996. Section 12A of the Commercial Courts
Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of Section 138
of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any
other laws, which prescribe period(s) of
limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits
(within which the court or tribunal can condone
delay) and termination of proceedings.
Xxx
14. On considering the subsequent order of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 08.03.2021, this Court
is of the view that the delay of filing the written
statement in this case has to be condoned, since, for
computation of limitation the period from 15.03.2020
to 14.03.2021 has to be executed."
7. The said judgment of the Madras High Court has been upheld by the
Supreme Court in Centaur Pharmaceuticals v. Stanford Laboratories Pvt.
Ltd. [SLP No.17298/2021 dated 4th January, 2022], in the following terms:
"Having heard the learned counsel for the respective
parties, we are of the opinion that, in the facts and
circumstances of the case, the High Court has not
committed any error in extending the period of
limitation in filing the written statement and
consequently taking on record the written statement
filed on behalf of the respondent-original defendant.
Even as held by this Court in the subsequent orders
even the period of limitation which could have been
extended and/or condoned by the Tribunal/Court is
excluded and/or extended even up to 07.10.2021.
In that view of the matter, we see no reason to
interfere with the impugned judgment and order
passed by the High Court. Hence, the Special Leave
Petitions stand dismissed. Consequent upon the
dismissal of the Special Leave Petitions, the interim
order passed by this Court stands vacated."
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEVANSHU JOSHI
Signing Date:20.04.2022
07:19:55
8. In view of this legal position and the facts of this case, the delay in
filing the written statement and affidavit of admission and denial is
condoned, subject to payment of Rs.10,000/- as costs. The said costs shall be
paid by the Defendant to the ld. Counsel for the Plaintiff within two weeks.
9. Subject to the above, the written statement and affidavit of
admission/denial are also taken on record.
10. Both I.A.3480/2021 & 2953/2021 are disposed of, in these terms.
CS (COMM) 62/2020 & I.A.1844/2020 (for stay)
11. Replication be filed within four weeks, along with the
admission/denial documents.
12. List before the Joint Registrar, for marking of exhibits on 7th July,
2022.
13. List before the Court on 26th August, 2022 for case management
hearing and hearing on the injunction application, being I.A. 1844/2020.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUDGE
APRIL 18, 2022/dk/ms
