Notice of Motion requesting to quash and set aside orders that moved a suit to the undefended list due to the defendants' failure to file a written statement on time. The Applicants seek to condone a 231-day delay in filing their written statement, arguing that internal coordination and workload caused the delay. The document examines legal arguments and precedents, highlighting the strict 120-day limit for filing written statements under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, and the conflicting flexibility provided by the High Court Original Side Rules. It concludes that the Commercial Courts Act supersedes High Court rules for expediting commercial dispute resolution, leading to the dismissal of the Notice of Motion.

Introduction

1. Purpose of Notice of Motion:
   • Quash orders transferring the suit to the undefended list.
   • Condonation of a 231-day delay in filing the written statement.
   • Take the written statement on record.

Background and Reason for Delay

2. Service of Writ of Summons:
   • Served on 2nd November 2016.
   • Coordination through Advocates in Nagpur and Mumbai.
3. Efforts to Comply with Directions:
   • Conditional order by Prothonotary on 3rd February 2017.
   • Directed to file by 8th March 2017; delay due to internal issues.
4. Initial Proceedings:
   • Request for extension denied; suit transferred on 8th March 2017.
   • Chamber Order filed on 7th April 2017; dismissed on 14th August 2017.

Legal Arguments and Justifications

5. Applicant's Position:
   • Delay caused by internal complexities despite diligent efforts.
   • Written statement ready and affirmed when filing the Notice of Motion.
   • Precedents cited for delay condonation and fair trial.
6. Plaintiff's Position:
   • Claims delay is 313 days, not 231.
   • Six-year inaction undermines bona fides.
   • Strict 120-day limit under Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

Legal Precedents and Jurisprudence

7. Reliance on Legal Precedents:
   • High Court rules prevail over CPC in conflicts.
   • High Court empowered to extend filing time.
8. Supreme Court Interpretation:
   • SCG Contracts case reinforces the 120-day limit.
9. Contention of Special Law vs. General Law:
   • High Court rules and Letters Patent prevail over CPC and Commercial Courts Act.

Court's Analysis and Conclusion

10. Court's Consideration:
    • Delay of 231 days admitted.
    • Analysis of CPC amendments and applicability to commercial disputes.
    • Supreme Court supports the finality of the 120-day period.
11. Conclusion:
    • Commercial Courts Act imposes a strict 120-day period.
    • High Court rules allow flexibility but are overridden by the Act.
    • Decision balances principles from different precedents.

Introduction to CPC and Its Provisions

• General Overview: Consolidates civil procedure laws.
• Section 4(1) - Savings Clause: CPC does not limit special or local laws.
• Part IX - Application to High Courts: Sections 116 to 120 detail CPC's applicability.

Rule-Making Power of High Courts

• Part X - Rule Making: High Courts can modify procedural rules.
• Section 129: High Courts can create original civil procedure rules.

Historical Development and Special Role of Chartered High Courts

• Pre-1908 Codes: Impact on Chartered High Courts.
• Letters Patent and Clause 37: CPC extended to High Courts.
• Amendments and Section 129: High Courts retain procedural flexibility.

Arguments and Judicial Interpretations

• Historical Context: Analysis of 1895 amendment.
• Judicial Interpretations: Affirmation of High Courts' special procedural rules.

Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and Its Impact

• Introduction and Purpose: Expedites high-value commercial disputes.
• Key Provisions: Constitution of Commercial Courts and Divisions.
• CPC Amendments: Changes to enhance efficiency.

Conclusion

• Prevailing Provisions: High Court rules generally prevail over CPC but not the Commercial Courts Act.
• Purpose of the Act: Prioritizes expedited dispute resolution.

Legislative and Judicial Analysis of Commercial Courts Act

• Introduction to Commercial Courts Act and Amendment Act: Need for speedy dispute disposal.
• Provisions of the Act: Constitution and jurisdiction of Commercial Courts.
• Amendments to CPC in Application to Commercial Disputes: Mandatory 120-day limit.
• Section 16 of the Act: CPC amendments' overriding effect.
• Judicial Interpretations: Supreme Court decisions on 120-day limit.
• Conclusion: Dismissal of Notice of Motion, suit proceeds as undefended.