The High Court of Andhra Pradesh has held that while the time limits for filing a written statement under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, are mandatory, a written statement filed within the 120-day outer limit cannot be struck off without granting the defendant an opportunity to explain the delay. The Division Bench, comprising Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam, emphasized that procedural law is the “handmaid of justice” and should not be used to scuttle a party’s substantive rights.
Background
The case arose from a commercial suit (C.O.S. No. 24 of 2024) filed by M/s. Sree Mahalakshmi Oil Mills (Respondent) against Bunge India Pvt. Ltd (Petitioner) seeking a refund of approximately ₹1.35 crores and damages exceeding ₹3.21 crores. The petitioner received the suit summons on October 30, 2024. Under the Commercial Courts Act, the initial 30-day period to file a written statement expired on December 6, 2024. The petitioner eventually filed the written statement on February 18, 2025—the 110th day—which was within the 120-day maximum permissible limit.
However, the petitioner did not file an application for condonation of delay or provide reasons for the delay in the written statement. The Special Court for Commercial Disputes, Vijayawada, allowed an application by the respondent to strike off the written statement on the grounds that it was filed beyond 30 days without a formal request for extension or recorded reasons.
Arguments of the Parties
The Petitioner argued that the written statement was filed within the statutory 120-day limit. They contended that striking off a defense on “hyper-technical grounds” would result in a miscarriage of justice. It was further argued that since the court had physically received the written statement on the 110th day without objection, the petitioner assumed it was accepted.
The Respondent contended that the time frames under the Commercial Courts Act are mandatory. They argued that if a written statement is not filed within the first 30 days, specific reasons must be assigned and recorded by the court. Since no such application was filed, the written statement was invalid in the eye of law and correctly struck off.
Court’s Analysis
The Court analyzed Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC as amended by the Commercial Courts Act. It noted two distinct mandates:
- Positive Mandate: A written statement shall be allowed between 30 and 120 days for reasons to be recorded in writing and on payment of costs.
- Negative Mandate: A written statement shall not be allowed after the expiry of 120 days.
The Bench observed that while the law is strict, the “mortality of justice at the hands of law troubles a Judge’s conscience.” Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in Kailash v. Nanhku, the Court noted:
“The provision being in the domain of the Procedural Law, it has to be held directory and not mandatory… The purpose of providing the time schedule… is to expedite and not to scuttle the hearing.”
The Court clarified that for a written statement filed within 120 days, the “sufficient cause” for delay can be explained through an application filed even after the 120-day period has lapsed. The Bench held:
“The mandate is that the written statement cannot be filed after 120 days… but such a mandate cannot be read for filing an application for condonation of delay for a written statement already filed within 120 days.”
The Court further noted that when the petitioner filed the statement on the 110th day, the Special Court merely recorded it was “filed.” Had the court pointed out the lack of a delay application at that moment, the petitioner would have had 10 days remaining within the statutory window to rectify the lapse.
Decision
The High Court set aside the order dated December 26, 2025, which had struck off the written statement. The Court granted the petitioner 15 days to file a formal application for condonation of delay explaining the 80-day lapse (beyond the initial 30 days).
The Special Court was directed to decide the application on its merits within two months. The High Court allowed the revision petition but imposed a cost of ₹10,000 on the petitioner, payable to the respondent, for the procedural lapse.
Case Details Block:
- Case Title: Bunge India Pvt. Ltd vs. M/s. Sree Mahalskhmi Oil Mills
- Case Number: Civil Revision Petition No. 214 of 2026
- Judges: Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam
- Date: March 17, 2026
