In a landmark decision, the court emphasizes procedural justice, allowing the defendant a chance to file an application for condonation of delay after striking off the initial written statement.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court, in a significant judgment, has granted Bunge India Pvt. Ltd. the opportunity to explain the delay in filing their written statement in a commercial dispute case against M/s. Sree Mahalakshmi Oil Mills. This decision comes after the Special Court for Trial and Disposal of Commercial Disputes in Vijayawada struck off the company's written statement for being filed beyond the initial 30-day period without an accompanying application for condonation of delay.
The case, revolving around a financial dispute, involved a claim by the plaintiff, M/s. Sree Mahalakshmi Oil Mills, seeking a refund of Rs. 1.35 crore with interest and damages amounting to Rs. 3.21 crore from Bunge India Pvt. Ltd. The controversy arose when the written statement was filed on the 110th day after the summons were served, but without a formal request to condone the delay.
The High Court, comprising Justices Ravi Nath Tilhari and Maheswara Rao Kuncheam, emphasized the procedural provisions under Order VIII Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), as amended for the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The court highlighted that these provisions, though mandatory, retain their procedural character and must be construed to advance justice. The court stated that procedural laws should not override substantive rights and should act as a handmaid of justice.
The court observed that while the written statement was filed within the permissible 120-day period, the absence of an application explaining the delay could not justify striking off the statement without granting an opportunity to the defendant to rectify the procedural lapse. The judgment underscores the importance of balancing procedural discipline with the need for substantial justice, particularly in commercial disputes where expeditious disposal is paramount.
The High Court set aside the order dated December 26, 2025, by the Special Court and directed Bunge India Pvt. Ltd. to file an application for condonation of delay within 15 days, allowing the Special Court to reconsider the matter with a focus on the substantive justice involved.
This decision reinforces the judiciary's commitment to ensuring that procedural technicalities do not impede the delivery of justice, particularly in complex commercial litigations.
Bottom Line:
The procedural provisions under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC, as amended for Commercial Courts Act, 2015, though mandatory in nature, retain their procedural character and must be construed to advance justice. A written statement filed beyond 30 days but within 120 days can still be allowed upon showing sufficient cause, even if the delay explanation is furnished beyond 120 days.
Statutory provision(s): Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Order VIII Rule 1, Commercial Courts Act, 2015
