Vraj Iron And Steel Limited v. Viraj Profiles Pvt. Ltd.

Bombay HC7 Jan 2026IA/7693/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay HC Commercial Division (Deshmukh J., 19.01.2026), Viraj Profiles Pvt Ltd v. Vraj Iron And Steel Limited: IA No. 7693 of 2025 for condonation of delay in filing Written Statement allowed since the 120-day period had not expired; Written Statement taken on record; parties agreed suit involves IP infringement and Plaintiff directed to re-categorise it as a Commercial IPR Suit; adjourned to 27-01-2026 (directions). Keywords: condonation of delay, Written Statement, 120 days, Commercial Suit numbering, Commercial IPR Suit.

What did the court decide?

Delay in filing the Defendant's Written Statement condoned and the Written Statement directed to be taken on record; Plaintiff to take appropriate steps for proper categorisation of the suit as a Commercial IPR Suit; matter stand over to 27th January, 2026 (directions). ¶¶23

Vraj Iron And Steel Limited vs Viraj Profiles Pvt. Ltd. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay in filing the Defendant's Written Statement ought to be condoned and the Written Statement taken on record, the application having been filed before expiry of the 120-day period. +1 more

¶¶22

Court's answer

The Interim Application seeking condonation of delay in filing the Written Statement is allowed and the Written Statement is directed to be taken on record.

¶¶23

Ratio / Principle

The Court found that the 120-day period had not yet expired and that the application had been filed before that date, which underpinned the condonation of delay.

¶¶22

Key takeaways

On the Defendant's submission that the suit was wrongly numbered as a Commercial Suit, and the parties' agreement that its subject-matter is infringement of intellectual property rights, learned counsel for the Plaintiff was directed to take appropriate steps to ensure the suit is properly categorised.ratio¶¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Commercial Division (O.O.C.J.), per Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J. (19 January 2026): Interim Application No. 7693 of 2025 in Commercial Suit No. 90 of 2025, moved by the Defendant (Vraj Iron And Steel Limited) for condonation of delay in filing the Written Statement, was allowed. The Court held the 120-day period had not yet expired and the application had been filed before that date, with the delay explained by the Managing Director's travel for work-related commitments; the Written Statement was directed to be taken on record. On the Defendant's submission that the suit had been wrongly numbered as a Commercial Suit, both parties agreed the subject-matter is infringement of intellectual property rights, and the Plaintiff's (Viraj Profiles Pvt Ltd) counsel was directed to take appropriate steps to ensure proper categorisation as a Commercial IPR Suit. Matter stand over to 27th January, 2026 (directions). No statute or precedent is cited in this short procedural order.

¶1

33 IA-7693-2025.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION IN ITS COMMERCIAL DIVISION

¶3

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 7693 OF 2025 IN COMMERCIAL SUIT NO. 90 OF 2025

¶4

Vraj Iron And Steel Limited ...Applicant In the matter between : Viraj Profiles Pvt Ltd ...Plaintiff Versus

¶5

Vraj Iron And Steel Limited ...Defendant

¶6

WITH

¶7

COMMERCIAL SUIT NO. 90 OF 2025

¶8

Ms. Shilpa Kapil, Ms. Aishwarya Mall for Plaintiff .

¶9

Ms. Laher Shah, Mr. Jayesh Kalbere, Ms. Hasti Parekh i/b Ms. Laher Shah for Defendant.

¶10

——————

¶11

CORAM : SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J. DATE : JANUARY 19, 2026.

¶12

P. C. :

¶13

Interim Application No. 7693 of 2025 :

¶14

1. Interim Application has been preferring seeking condonation of

¶15

delay in filing the Written Statement.

¶16

2. Learned counsel for Applicant submits that the period of 120 days expires tomorrow. She would further submit that Defendant's Managing Director was travelling for work-related commitments and as

¶17

1 of 2

¶18

Sairaj

¶19

33 IA-7693-2025.doc

¶20

such was unable to give timely instructions for finalizing the Written Statement and by reason thereof, delay has occurred.

¶21

3. Learned counsel appearing for Respondent-original Plaintiff opposes the application as there is no sufficient explanation for delay.

¶22

4. The filing of the Written Statement has been delayed for which there is sufficient explanation tendered in the Interim Application. The period of 120 days has not yet been expired and the Application has been filed before the said date.

¶23

5. For the reasons stated in Interim Application, the Interim Application is allowed. The Written Statement is directed to be taken on record.

¶24

Commercial Suit No. 90 of 2025 :

¶25

6. Learned counsel for Defendant submits that the suit has been wrongly numbered as Commercial Suit whereas the same should be numbered as Commercial IPR Suit.

¶26

7. Both parties agree that the subject-matter of the suit is infringement of intellectual property rights.

¶27

8. Learned counsel for Plaintiff to take appropriate steps to ensure that the suit is properly categorised.

¶28

9. At the request of learned counsel for Plaintiff, stand over to 27^th January, 2026 (directions).

¶29

[SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.]

¶30

2 of 2

¶31

Sairaj

Vraj Iron And Steel Limited v. Viraj Profiles Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vraj Iron And Steel Limited v. Viraj Profiles Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Chetan Bhanushali vs Dayal Nathalal Bhanushali

Shalimar Pack vs Kuloday Technopack Pvt. Ltd.

Sudha Dilip Doshi vs Dilip Mansukhlal Doshi

Abhay Asharfilal Gupta vs Vijay Asharfilal Gupta

Sudha Dilip Doshi vs Dilip Mansukhlal Doshi

Emcure Pharmaceuticals Limited vs Msure Pharmachem LLP