Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ms Rajilaxmi Oils Through Sole ... vs Kriti Nutrients Ltd. A Company ... on 6 October, 2025
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29084
1 M.P. No. 4924/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI
ON THE 6th OF OCTOBER, 2025
MISC. PETITION No. 4924 of 2023
MS RAJILAXMI OILS THROUGH SOLE PROPRIETOR
MR KISHORE KUMAR
Versus
KRITI NUTRIENTS LTD. A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE
COMPANIES ACT 1956 NOV 2013
..........................................................................................................................
Appearance:
Shri Bhashkar Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Vikram Malviya and Shri Rajendra Bhansali, learned counsel for the respondent.
.............................................................................................................................
ORDER
Per: Justice Binod Kumar Dwivedi
This Miscellaneous Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India has been filed assailing the legality and correctness of impugned order
dated 04.07.2023 passed in Commercial Case No. 68/2022 on application (I.A.
No. 2/2023) filed on behalf of petitioner/defendant for taking written statement
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29084
on record has been dismissed.
2. It is not in dispute that Civil Suit No. 14/2020 under Section 142 of
the Trademarks Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred for short „the Act of 1999‟) and
Section 60 of Copy Right Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred for short „the Act of
1957‟) was filed in the year 2020 before the Commercial Court, Indore. It is also
not in dispute that on 09.02.2021, respondent preferred the present suit against
the petitioner i.e. Civil Suit No. 248/2022 (new No. 68/2022) before the
Commercial Court, Indore.
3. Brief facts as narrated in the application (I.A. No. 2/2023) are that
defendant had filed a Civil Suit No. COMMS 14/2020 titled as M/s. Rajlaxmi
Oils Vs. M/s. Kriti Nutrients Ltd. under Section 142 of the Act of 1999,
thereafter plaintiff filed the present suit between the same parties. During the
pendency of both the suits, plaintiff filed a suit before Ld. Comms. Court Delhi
between the same parties on the same cause of action by stating wrong facts and
got passed an ex-parte injunction order from the Ld. Comms. Court Delhi. After
appearance of the answering defendant, Ld. Comms. Court Delhi dismissed the
said suit. After obtaining ex-parte injunction order, petitioner/plaintiff got seized
the products of respondent/defendant after preparing the inventory. Plaintiff has
not returned the products of the respondent/defendant even after dismissal of the
suit. Therefore, there is continuous and subsisting cause of action. Due to ex-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29084
parte injunction, the business of respondent/defendant was adversely affected
and a lot of money was spent to defend the suit before Ld. Comms. Court at
Delhi. Due to this, defendant was unable to put his defence before the Court in
time. As soon as the suit before Ld. Comms. Court Delhi was dismissed,
defendant submitted its written statement before this Court. On these grounds,
prayer is made to condone the delay in submitting written statement and to place
the written statement filed on behalf of defendant on record. Learned trial Court
vide impugned order dated 04.07.2023 has rejected the application which gives
rise to this miscellaneous petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that impugned order
(Annexure P/5) is bad in law as it is against the facts and material on record.
Learned counsel further submits that the learned trial Court has failed to
consider that from the very inception a suit has been preferred by the petitioner
against the respondent claiming groundless threats of legal proceedings under
Section 142 of the Act of 1999 and Section 60 of the Act of 1957. Learned
counsel further submits that the trial Court has failed to consider that during the
pendency of the aforesaid two suits, the respondent suppressing facts preferred
another civil suit before the Commercial Court, Delhi which was registered as
Commercial Suit No. 439/2021, wherein he secured an ex-parte injunction
against the petitioner from the same Court on 12.12.2021. He further submits
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29084
that the trial Court further failed to consider that in view of the ex-parte
injunction order, an inventory/ Superdaginama dated 17/11/2021 was prepared
and all the articles of the present petitioner were seized and thereafter when the
petitioner succeeded in getting the suit preferred by the respondent, Delhi Court
dismissed the same vide order dated 07/01/2023 and the petitioner vide
communication dated 12/01/2023 requested the commissioner for release of the
articles of the petitioner but the same has not been released.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner
in the present suit has also preferred an application under Section 10 of the Code
of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred for short „the CPC‟) on
11.04.2022 for staying the proceedings of the present suit explaining the factual
aspect of pending suit at Delhi, but no orders were passed. Learned counsel
further submits that the learned trial Court has committed grave error of law in
rejecting the application for condonation of delay in filing written statement and
also not taking the aforesaid written statement on record. To buttress his
submissions, he has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Apex Court
in the case of SCG Contacts India Private Limited vs. K.S. Chamankar
Infrastructure Private Limited, (2019) 12 SCC 210. He has further referred
para - 13 of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in Raj Process Equipment
and Systems Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Honest Derivatives Pvt. Ltd. 2022 SCC
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29084
Online SC 1877. He has further referred para-25 to 30 of the judgment passed
by the Apex Court in Prakash Corporates vs. Dee Vee Projects Limited (2022)
5 SCC 112. In the light of aforesaid judgments, learned counsel prays for
allowing the petition by setting aside the impugned order and directs the
Commercial Court to take the written statement preferred by the petitioner on
record in the interest of justice.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently
opposed the prayer on the ground that the petitioner has not taken any steps to
place on record the written statement in time i.e. 120 days fixed under
Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Even if it is considered that pendency of Civil
Suit before the Delhi Court hindered the petitioner in filing the written statement
in time, it is worth consideration that the suit before the Delhi Court was
dismissed on 07.01.2023, therefore, by any stretch of imagination written
statement should have been filed by 07.05.2023, but the same has been filed
before the Court on 09.06.2023 i.e. beyond the stipulated period of 120 days.
Commercial Court has not been given any description to extend the period for
filing written statement beyond 120 days and to buttress his submissions, he has
placed reliance upon the judgment in SCG Contacts India Private Limited
(supra), order dated 04.05.2022 passed by Delhi High Court in the case of M/s.
Vidhi Electrical and Engineering Company vs. M/s. C & S Electric Limited &
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29084
Anr. [FAO (OS) (COMM) 106/2022], order dated 17.08.2021 passed by Delhi
High Court in M/s. OK Play India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. A.P. Distributors & Anr. [CM
(M) 346/2020], order dated 05.07.2022 passed by Delhi High Court in 3M
Company vs. Mr. Vikas Sinha & Anr. [CS (COMM) 144/2019], order dated
29.01.2024 passed by Division Bench of this Court at Jabalpur in M.P. No.
6405/2023 (Itarsi Pipes Sales & Anr. Vs. OMRF Pipes and Products & Ors.)
and order dated 04.06.2025 passed by Karnataka High Court in WP No.
34745/2024 (GM-CPC) (M/s. Imagex Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs.
Granitec Industries & Anr.). On these miscellaneous contentions, learned
counsel for the respondent prays for dismissal of the petition as the same being
devoid of any substance.
7. Heard and considered the rival submissions raised at Bar and
perused the record.
8. It is not in dispute that in the instant commercial case No. 68/2022
was filed before the Commercial Court, Indore. Similarly, Commercial Suit No.
14/2020 (M/s. Rajlaxmi Oils Vs. M/s. Kriti Nutrients Ltd.) was also filed before
the Commercial Court, Indore. It is also not disputed that the case filed by the
respondent before the Delhi High Court (Commercial Case No. 68/2022) was
dismissed on 07.01.2023. Order VIII CPC deals with filing of written statement.
The aforesaid provision has been amended by way of Section 16 of Commercial
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29084
Courts Act, 2015 whereby period of 120 days have been fixed for filing of
written statement from the date of service of summons. The relevant provision
runs as under:-
"(i) in rule 1, for the proviso, the following proviso shall be
substituted, namely:-
"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 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."
9. In the case of SCG Contacts India Private Limited (supra),
Hon‟ble Apex Court has elaborated with regard to the time limit fixed for filing
written statement in commercial suits. Relevant paragraph 8 runs as under :-
"8. The Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and
Commercial Appellate Division of High Court Act, 2015
came into force on 23.10.2015 bringing in their wake certain
amendments to the Code of Civil Procedure. In order V, Rule
1, sub-rule (1), for the second proviso, the following proviso
was substituted:
"Provided further 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 days, 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29084
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
statement to be taken on record." Equally, in order VIII Rule
1, a new proviso was substituted as follows:
"Provided that where the defendant fails to 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, the defendant shall
forfeit the right to file the written statement and the court not
allow the written statement to be taken on record."
This was re-emphasized by re-inserting yet another
proviso in Order VIII Rule 10 CPC, which reads as under:-
"Procedure when party fails to present written statement
called for by Court.- Where any party from whom a written
statement is required under Rule 1 or Rule 9 fails to present
the same within the time permitted or fixed by the Court, as
the case may be, the Court shall pronounce judgment against
him, or make such order in relation to the suit as it thins fit
and on pronouncement of such judgment a decree shall be
drawn up.
Provided further that no Court shall make an order to
extend the time provided under Rule 1 of this Order for filing
of the written statement."
A Perusal of the these provisions would show that
ordinarily a written statement is to be filed within a period of
30 days. However, 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29084
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 VIII Rule 10 also adding that the Court
has no further power to extent the time beyond this period of
120 days."
(Emphasis supplied)
10. In the light of aforesaid provision, in para-19, the appeal has been
allowed with a direction that W.S. of the defendant No. 1 must be taken of the
record. Para-19 runs as under:-
"19. The appeal is allowed, with the consequence that the
written statement of Defendant No.1 must be taken off the
record."
11. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on para-13 of
judgment passed by the Apex Court in Raj Process Equipment and Systems
Pvt. Ltd. (supra) for buttressing his point that Hon‟ble the Apex Court has
carved out exceptions where written statement even in commercial suits can be
allowed to be filed beyond stipulated time of 120 days. Relevant paragraph of
the judgment is reproduced which runs as under:-
"13. But we do not agree. The suit that became the subject
matter of dispute in SCG Contracts India Private Limited,
appears to have been filed before the Commercial Court and
not before the normal Civil Court. Insofar as the normal Civil
Courts are concerned, it is the proviso to Order VIII Rule 1
CPC which applies. In Salem Advocates Bar Association v.
Union of India, (2025) 6 SCC 344, this Court held that the
proviso to Rule 1 of Order VIII CPC is directory and not
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29084
mandatory. An exception was carved out in SCG Contracts
India Private Limited to this Rule, by this Court insofar as the
commercial disputes are concerned by invoking the second
proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 1 of Order V. Therefore, to
apply the same principle to a matter where the suit was
instituted before the normal Civil Court and transferred to a
Commercial Court after the expiry of 120 days would be to
give a complete twist to the interpretation given by the 3-
member Bench in Salem Advocate Bar Association, to the
proviso to Order VIII Rule 1 CPC."
12. From perusal of the aforesaid paragraph of the judgment, it is
amply clear that exception has been carved out for the cases where the suit was
instituted before normal Civil Court and transferred to a Commercial Court after
expiry of 120 days, but this is not factual matrix in the instant case. As instant
case was filed only before the Commercial Court itself, therefore, arguments
advanced on behalf of the petitioner even though appear prima facie impressive,
but are not acceptable due to the distinguishable factual matrix. The other
argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner for showing his inability to file
written statement in time is that since civil suit was filed before the Delhi Court
by the respondent and wherein ex-parte injunction was granted in his favour and
in pursuance thereof plaintiff got seized the products of the defendants after
preparing the inventory and products were not returned, therefore, he was
unable to file WS in time.
13. We have given our anxious consideration to the aforesaid
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29084
arguments also, but the same are in vain. It is undisputed that Civil Suit filed
before the Delhi Court was admittedly dismissed on 07.01.2023 and, therefore,
after dismissal of the same, application filed under Section 10 of CPC before the
Commercial Court of Indore has infructuous. Thus, it can also not be a ground
that since the aforesaid application under Section 10 of CPC was not decided
and, therefore, he was unable to file WS in time. There is nothing on record to
show that any effort was made by the petitioner to file WS within 120 days even
from 07.01.2023, the date when Civil Suit before the Delhi Court was
dismissed. The applicant has further placed reliance upon the judgment in
Prakash Corporates (supra) and Raj Process Equipment and Systems Pvt. Ltd.
(supra) are also of no use as they have been given in different factual
background and even otherwise none of the judgments relied upon by the
petitioner hold that Commercial Court has any discretion in extending the time
limit of 120 days for filing the WS. Judgments passed in SCG Contacts India
Private Limited (supra), M/s. Vidhi Electrical and Engineering Company
(supra), M/s. OK Play India Pvt. Ltd. (supra), 3M Company (supra), Itarsi
Pipes Sales(supra) and M/s. Imagex Technologies India Pvt. Ltd.(supra) deal
directly with the aforesaid point wherein it has been clearly held that time limit
fixed by the Commercial Court which is filing WS within stipulated period of
120 days is for the purpose of speedy disposal of the commercial disputes is
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29084
mandatory and cannot be extended. Upshot of the aforesaid discussion is that
the Commercial Court has not committed any error either factual or legal in
rejecting the application (I.A. No. 2/2023) moved on behalf of the petitioner for
giving permission to take written statement on record filed beyond the stipulated
period of 120 days.
14. Resultantly, the petition filed on behalf of the petitioner is sans
merit, fails and is hereby dismissed.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE JUDGE
Soumya
