Whether Written Statement can be rejected from file for non-filling of statement of truth?

-

 


Shubham Budhiraja[1]

 




Mr. A filed a recovery suit against Mr. B. Mr. B filed the written statement to which Mr. A field the objection. The Learned Court through one of order observed that the written statement is not in compliance with Order VI Rule 15A. Mr. A thereafter filed an application for striking off Mr. B’s pleadings (WS) for non-compliance of provisions of commercial courts act, 2015. Mr. B filed an application for curing the defects. The Learned Trial Court allowed Mr. B’s application and strike off the pleadings. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court set aside the trial court’s order and held as under:[2]

 

(I)                In FMC Corporation and Anr. v. NATCO Pharma Ltd., 2020 SCC OnLine Del 2074 wherein similarly the Court held that an application for amendment seeking to cure the defects in verification and pleading should be permitted liberally and a party should not be non-suited.

 

 

(II)              This Court is of the opinion that the intent of the legal proceedings is that the claims raised by a plaintiff should be decided on its merits after adjudicating upon the defence of the defendant. The intent of the Act of 2015 is to ensure a time bound disposal of the claims raised by the plaintiff on merits and to this effect regulate accuracy in pleadings of the parties and to ensure that parties do not indulge in dilatory tactics. The intent of the rigours of the Act is not to afford a decree in default to the plaintiff.

 

(III)            The striking off a written statement which was filed within the statutory period of limitation would defeat the ends of justice rather than advancing the dispensation of justice in a time bound manner, which is the true intent of the Act of 2015.

 

(IV)             In this matter the suit is still at the stage of framing of issues. No objection to verification of the written statement was raised by plaintiff in the replication. Subsequently, when the plaintiff first raised the objection, the defendant has immediately offered to cure the said defect of verification.

 

(V)               In these facts and circumstances, the defendant should not be precluded from having its defence adjudicated, solely on account of the defect in verification considering that the defendant has at this initial stage itself taken steps to have the defects cured and bring its written statement on record in compliance with the provisions of Act of 2015.

 

(VI)             No prejudice will be caused to the plaintiff if the defect in verification is permitted to be cured because as noted above, importantly, no change is being carried out to pleadings in the written statement.

 

(VII)           The corrections in defective verification are sought to be carried by the defendant at the outset and therefore, they have to be permitted.


[1]Advocate, Delhi High Court [BCOM(H), ACS, LLB]  Budhirajalawchambers@gmail.com, +91-9654055315

[2] CM(M) 990/2023, Judgment dated 17/08/2023

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

REPUGANCY UNDER ARTICLE 254 & TEST OF VALIDATING LAW

-
Image
  Shubham Budhiraja [1] [1] Company Secretary, LLB Final Year,DU & Bcom (H) The land acquisition falls in concurrent list and parliament in year 2013 has introduced a new act which provides for rehabilitation, compensation and procedure on land acquisition of property. The State of T.N has made 3 different state laws w.r.t. land acquisition which was struck off by the High Court. Thereafter, state of TN in year 2019 enacted the same law but with president assent under Article 254 to avoid the repugnancy with 2013 act under Article 254. The appeal filed before apex court w.r.t. repugnancy of 2019 state law with 2013 central law & test of validating the struck off law. The Supreme Court observed as: VALIDATING A LAW WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT Case Law Relevant Remarks National  Agricultural  Cooperative  Marketing  Federation  of India Ltd. & Anr. vs. Union o...
Read more

Whether a person can be appointed as an arbitrator if his daughter is married to the son of the eldest brother of one of the parties in the arbitration proceedings?

-
Image
    Shubham Budhiraja [1] Two brothers running a family business in the form of a company and dispute arise between them and both decide to resolve through arbitration. During course of arbitration proceedings, one of party filed Section 14(2) r/w Section 15 Petition filed challenging mandate of arbitrator as being terminated because son of arbitrator is married to daughter of eldest brother of one of party and thus should be disqualified under Section 12(5) being ‘close family relationship’. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court declined the relief and held that neither the Seventh Schedule of the A&C Act nor the IBA Guidelines define the expression ‘close family relationship’. The plain language of Entry no. 9 indicates that it is not the legislative intent to render a distant relative of the parties to be ineligible for being appointed as an arbitrator, if both the parties so agree. It is not sufficient that the arbitrator is related to any one of the parties; the relation...
Read more

Whether unstamped agreement to sell executed in the year 1988 can be relied upon in suit for possession?

-
Image
  Whether unstamped agreement to sell executed in the year 1988 can be relied upon in suit for possession?   Under what circumstances, photocopy of agreement to sell can be relied upon as secondary evidence?   Shubham Budhiraja [1]   A filed a suit for possession against B on basis of agreement to sell executed in the year 1989. During the hearing, A filed IA for reading photocopy of agreement to sell as secondary evidence because he is not able to find the original agreement to sell. The Trial Court allowed the IA but in review rejected that because agreement to sell was insufficiently stamped therefore bar of section 35 of stamp act applies. The High Court confirmed the order. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that bar of Section 35 will not apply because amendment of 1990 wherein explanation was added to the stamp act was substantive in nature and therefore new obligation of stamping cannot be imposed on agreement of sell executed between A and B. [2] ...
Read more