LexPIC DEPARTMENTALS PVT. LTD. versus SREELEATHERS PVT. LTD.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 1409 : 2024 INSC 654 PIC Departmentals Pvt. Ltd. v. Sreeleathers Pvt. Ltd. (Civil Appeal No. 8968 of 2024) 30 July 2024 [Sudhanshu Dhulia* and Ahsanuddin Amanullah,* JJ. ] Issue for Consideration Issue arose as to whether the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court was justified in allowing extension of time for filing written statement after a considerable delay of 17 years. Headnotes† Rules of the High Court at Calcutta (Original Side), 1914 – Chapter XXXVIII r.46, Chapter IX rr.2, 35, Chapter X r.27 – Filing of written statement – Power to extend time, after a considerable delay: Held: Power to extend time for filing written statement should not be employed as a matter of course, but with great caution so that the purpose of the procedural statute is not defeated and unscrupulous litigants do not abuse the process of the Court by adopting dilatory tactis – However, the same cannot be examined in a strait-jacket compartment for the peculiar facts and circumstances of every case have to be carefully and individually appreciated – Thereafter, the concerned Court would take a call as to whether the request made is genuine or, whether refusal to accede to such request may lead to eventual miscarriage of justice – Procedural technicalities have to give way to substantive justice – Procedure, well and truly, is only the handmaiden of justice – Discretion granted to Courts has to be exercised on a case-specific basis – Sequence of events clearly indicates that the respondent cannot be said to be solely at fault since it was under the impression that the suit already stood disposed of and thus, there was no requirement/occasion to file the written statement – Case was listed suddenly after a prolonged gap of 17 years, in 2017, whereafter the respondent filed an appropriate application – Moreover, the reports submitted by the Registry of the High Court indicated that the official website of the High Court states that the suit had been disposed of in 2000, and; the High Court could not, for reasons best known to it alone, trace out any * Author 1410 [2024] 7 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports orders in the file of the suit pre-2017 – Situation that prevailed is a direct result of the confusion created by the Registry of High Court – It would be improper to not permit the taking on record of the written statement of the respondent apropos the suit – Thus, discretion rightly exercised by the Division Bench in favour of the respondent. [Paras 15-17] Case Law Cited Jayshree Tea & Industries v. General Magnets, 2007 SCC Online Cal 577; Prakash Corporates v. Dee Vee Projects Limited [2022] 8 SCR 889 : (2022) 5 SCC 112; Kailash v. Nanhku [2005] 3 SCR 289 : (2005) 4 SCC 480; Salem Advocate Bar Association T.N. v. Union of India [2005] Supp. 1 SCR 929 : (2005) 6 SCC 344; R.N. Jadi and Bros. v. Subhashchandra [2007] 8 SCR 241 : (2007) 6 SCC 420; Zolba v. Keshao [2008] 5 SCR 963 : (2008) 11 SCC 769; Mohammed Yusuf v. Faij Mohammad [2008] 17 SCR 20 : (2009) 3 SCC 513; Atcom Technologies Limited v. Y.A. Chunawala and Company (2018) 6 SCC 639; State of Gujarat v. Ramprakash P Puri [1970] 2 SCR 875; Sushil Kumar Sen v. State of Bihar [1975] 3 SCR 942 : (1975) 1 SCC 774; State v. M Subrahmanyam [2019] 7 SCR 287 : (2019) 6 SCC 357; Mahadev Govind Gharge v. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Upper Krishna Project [2011] 8 SCR 829 – referred to. List of Acts Rules of the High Court at Calcutta (Original Side), 1914. List of Keywords Written statement; Extension of time for filing written statement; Procedural statute; Unscrupulous litigants; Abuse the process of the Court; Miscarriage of justice; Procedural technicalities. Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 8968 of 2024 From the Judgment and Order dated 22.03.2024 of the High Court at Calcutta in APO No. 147 of 2023 Appearances for Parties Dr. S. Muralidhar, Sr. Adv., Indranil Ghosh, Arup Bhattacharyya, Palzer Moktan, Ms. Suparna Mukherjee, Ms. Mrinal Chaudhry, Ms. Mehar Bedi, Kartik, Ms. Aanchal Tikmani, Advs. for the Appellant. [2024] 7 S.C.R. 1411 PIC Departmentals Pvt. Ltd. v. Sreeleathers Pvt. Ltd. Rana Mukherjee, Sr. Adv., Ms. Daisy Hannah, Sumanta Biswas, Bikash Shaw, Samarth Mohanty, Ms. Oindrila Sen, Advs. for the Respondent. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Order Sudhanshu Dhulia & Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ. Leave granted. The sequence of events relevant to res
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.