The Delhi High Court recently rejected a petition challenging a commercial court’s order striking off a written statement over non-payment of costs for delay in filing [M/s Om Fire Safety Company Pvt Ltd v. Umakant].

The Court observed that the petitioner in a commercial suit had not filed its written statement on time. The commercial court condoned this delay subject to the petitioner paying costs. However, the petitioner failed to do so.

On being asked about the non-payment, the petitioner’s counsel first feigned ignorance and sought a second passover. Then she stated in a casual manner,

“De denge (I will give it)."

Upon this response, the commercial court struck off the petitioner’s written statement.

Before the High Court, the petitioner’s counsel stated that the costs were not paid due to some confusion as to whom it had to be paid to.

Justice Girish Kathpalia observed that the excuse is “flimsy” and stated that even if there was confusion, the petitioner’s counsel did not seek clarity. The Court stated that the issue is not about cost, but about compensating the party that resultantly suffered an adjournment. 

“In any case, where the order is silent as to whom the cost is to be paid, it is clear that the cost has to be paid to the opposite side which has suffered adjournment. I find the excuse for non-payment of cost completely flimsy. It is not a matter of the amount of the cost. It is a matter of compensating the other side who suffers due to default. The explanation for non-payment of cost is completely flimsy and does not appeal.”

The Court stated that the Commercial Courts Act was enacted to expedite commercial disputes. Thus, it said,

Any interpretation of any legal provision that dilutes the provision would militate against the basic philosophy behind creation of commercial courts. The commercial courts and the processes adopted by the same cannot be allowed to be dealt with in such casual manner, so as to convert the same into general civil suit."

Accordingly, the Court upheld the commercial court’s decision of striking off the written statement. 

“Where a litigant does not strictly adhere to the timelines and even thereafter, despite indulgence extended by the trial court, opts to somehow protract the proceedings, no further indulgence can be extended,” the Court stated. 

Advocates Jatin Sapra and Jahanvi Paliwal appeared for the petitioner.

Advocate Navneet Sharma appeared for the respondent.

[Read judgment]