Scribd
Upload
86 views3 pages

Commercial Suit 120 Days Judgment 2 Rajdhani Stores

The High Court of Delhi dismissed two petitions filed by Pooja Die Moulds and Vijay Engineering Works against Rajdhani Metal Store due to the defendants' failure to submit affidavits of admission/denial of documents within the mandatory 120-day period after being served. Despite filing written statements on time, the lack of required affidavits led the trial court to deem the plaintiff's documents as admitted. The court upheld the strict timelines set by the Commercial Court Act and found no merit in the petitions.

Uploaded by

advdonika
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
86 views3 pages

Commercial Suit 120 Days Judgment 2 Rajdhani Stores

The High Court of Delhi dismissed two petitions filed by Pooja Die Moulds and Vijay Engineering Works against Rajdhani Metal Store due to the defendants' failure to submit affidavits of admission/denial of documents within the mandatory 120-day period after being served. Despite filing written statements on time, the lack of required affidavits led the trial court to deem the plaintiff's documents as admitted. The court upheld the strict timelines set by the Commercial Court Act and found no merit in the petitions.

Uploaded by

advdonika
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

$~55 & 56

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


% Date of Decision: 17th March, 2025
+ CM(M) 496/2025 & CM APPL. 15377/2025
POOJA DIE MOULDS
.....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Gaurav Chaudhry and Mr.
Rishab, Advocates.
versus

RAJDHANI METAL STORE


.....Respondent
Through: None.
56
+ CM(M) 497/2025 & CM APPL. 15384/2025
VIJAY ENGINEERING WORKS
.....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Gaurav Chaudhry and Mr.
Rishab, Advocates.
versus

RAJDHANI METAL STORE


.....Respondent
Through: None.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN
J U D G M E N T (oral)
1. The grievance raised in both the abovesaid petitions is very short and
precise and since a common issue is involved, both the petitions have been
taken up together and are being disposed of by this common order.
2. The petitioners herein are defending two commercial suits filed by the
same plaintiff i.e. M/s. Rajdhani Metal Store.
3. Admittedly, the defendants were served on 07.09.2024. They also
filed their written statements on 21.09.2024.

Signature Not Verified


Digitally Signed CM(M) 496/2025 & CM(M) 497/2025 1
By:SONIA THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:18.03.2025
18:40:11
4. The defendant had though filed the written statements, statements of
truth and list of documents, the affidavit of admission/denial of documents
were not filed and since more than 120 days had already elapsed, reckoned
from the date of service, the learned Trial Court was compelled to observe
that in such a situation, the documents filed by the plaintiff would be
deemed to be admitted by the defendants.
5. Such orders dated 04.02.2025 are under challenge.
6. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that there was never any
attempt or endeavour from the side of the defendants to delay the matter. On
the contrary, the written statements were also filed within two weeks from
the date of service.
7. It is submitted that the affidavits of admission/denial of documents
could not be submitted as the proprietor of the defendant firm was not well
and had suffered fracture and secondly, the information was required to be
taken from the concerned accountant of the firm, who was on leave during
the relevant period.
8. A bare perusal of the impugned order would indicate that though the
written statements, as well as statements of truth had been filed within the
stipulated period, the affidavits of admission/denial of documents, which are
also indispensable requirement of law, were not submitted within the outer
permissible limit of 120 days.
9. The position is no longer res-integra.
10. By no stretch of imagination, it can be said that filing of affidavit of
admission/denial is a mere procedural requirement which can be cured and
corrected, on showing sufficient cause.
11. Reference may be made to Unilin Beheer B.V. vs. Balaji Action

Signature Not Verified


Digitally Signed CM(M) 496/2025 & CM(M) 497/2025 2
By:SONIA THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:18.03.2025
18:40:11
Buildwell 2019 SCC OnLine Del 8498 and Mayank Gupta vs. Aditya Birla
Fashion 2023 SCC OnLine Del 1485 whereby it has been observed that the
timelines provided in Commercial Court Act are strict and mandatory and no
leverage can be afforded to any party which defaulted thereof. In those case,
since the affidavit of admission/denial was not submitted along with the
written statement within permissible outer limit of the 120 days and such
provision was held as mandatory in nature, no relief was bestowed upon the
erring defendants.
12. The situation is, precisely, the same herein. The defendants were
served on 07.09.2024 and though the written statements were filed on
21.09.2024, the affidavits of admission/denial have not been filed despite the
expiry of permissible outer limit of 120 days.
13. In view of the above, this Court does not find any merit in the present
petitions. There are accordingly dismissed in limine.

(MANOJ JAIN)
JUDGE
MARCH 17, 2025/ss/shs

Signature Not Verified


Digitally Signed CM(M) 496/2025 & CM(M) 497/2025 3
By:SONIA THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:18.03.2025
18:40:11

You might also like