Allowed

Udaansure Private Limited v. Ms Sapna Goyal

Delhi HC7 Jul 2025CM(M)/1157/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Delhi condoned the delay in filing a belated written statement in a civil suit, directing the Trial Court to accept it while imposing a cost of Rs. 25,000/- as punishment for the delay caused by the corporate defendant.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of with direction to the Trial Court to take the written statement on record; Petitioner ordered to pay Rs. 25,000/-.

Udaansure Private Limited Vs Ms Sapna Goyal — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~56

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of Decision: 07^th July, 2025

¶4

- CM(M) 1157/2025 & CM APPL. 39089/2025

¶5

UDAANSURE PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Viren S. Chaudhary, Advocate

¶6

versus

¶7

MS SAPNA GOYAL .....Respondent Through: Mr. Gaurav Srivastava, Advocate (Through VC)

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral)

¶10

Petitioner is defendant before the learned Trial Court.

¶11

Limitation for the purposes of filing written statement by the petitioner/ defendant expired on 28.04.2024 and since he filed written statement on 06.08.2024, the learned Trial Court declined to take the same on record for the reason that it was filed belatedly.

¶12

Resultantly, the defence of defendant has also been struck off.

¶13

Defendant/petitioner herein moved an application seeking review of the aforesaid order and his such application also did not find any favour and has been dismissed on 25.04.2025.

¶14

Such order is under challenge.

¶15

Learned counsel for petitioner/defendant submits that delay in filing the written statement occurred due to unavoidable circumstances.

¶16

According to him, the suit was initially filed against the petitioner-company and its two Directors also. When the present suit was

¶17

Signature Not Verified

¶18

CM(M) 1146/2025

¶19

¶20

Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:0 8.07.2025 19:23:32

¶21

taken up by the learned Trial Court on 25.04.2025, the learned Trial Court deleted the names of such two Directors from the array of the parties holding that there was no personal liability of such Directors. It is submitted that the petitioner-company also learnt about the conduct of such Directors and they were got removed from the Directorship. It is submitted that since those Directors were earlier incharge for the day-to-day business activities of their company and were in control of all data, it took some time to collect the relevant information and in such a situation, delay should have been condoned.

¶22

He also submits that there was never any deliberate intention to delay the proceedings and assures that there would not be any such endeavour from their side, even on any future date(s).

¶23

Learned counsel for respondent/plaintiff joins the proceedings through videoconferencing.

¶24

During course of the arguments, learned counsel for respondent/plaintiff submitted that there was no illegality or perversity in the impugned order which had been passed, keeping in mind the negligent conduct of the defendant-company. He has, in all fairness, submitted that, without prejudice to their rights and contentions, he would have no objection if one last opportunity in this regard is granted, albeit, subject to imposition of heavy cost.

¶25

Keeping in mind the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the present petition is disposed with direction to learned Trial Court to take such written statement on record. However, for causing delay in the matter, petitioner herein is burdened with cost of Rs. 25,000/-.

¶26

Let such cost be cleared within ten days from today.

¶27

Signature Not Verified

¶28

CM(M) 1146/2025

¶29

¶30

Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:0 8.07.2025 19:23:32

¶31

It is also made clear that defendant shall not take any unnecessary adjournment in future and would render best assistance and co-operation to the learned Trial Court so that the suit is disposed of, without any delay.

¶32

Petition stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.

¶33

Pending applications also stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶34

(MANOJ JAIN) JUDGE

¶35

JULY 7, 2025/ dr/shs

¶36

Signature Not Verified

¶37

Digitally Signed CM(M) 1146/2025 By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:0 8.07.2025 19:23:32

¶38

Udaansure Private Limited v. Ms Sapna Goyal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Udaansure Private Limited v. Ms Sapna Goyal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashok Kumar Ohri and Anr. Vs Subhash Sachdeva

Ashok Kumar Ohri and Anr. Vs Sushil Kumar Talwar

Sanjeev Goyal Vs Joint Registrar Delhi International Arbitration Centre and Ors.

Raju Vs Dropati

K. L. Manhas Vs M/S Skystar Buildcon Pvt. Ltd.

Ashok Kumar Sood (Since Deceased Thr Lr) Vs Praveen Sood & Ors.

Rajesh Kumar Vs Ajay Kumar @ Ajay Singh

Vinod Kumar and Anr. Vs Neeraj Mittal and Ors.

Ashok Kumar Ohri and Anr. Vs Subhash Sachdeva

Ashok Kumar Ohri and Anr. Vs Sushil Kumar Talwar

Sh. Harbhajan Singh Vs Smt. Anjana and Anr.

Aditya Dave and Ors. Vs M/S Trans Asian Industries Expositions Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Vinod Kumar Sharma Vs Punjab National Bank

Suraj Kapur (Deceased) Thr L.R Sandeep Kapur Vs Subodh Gupta & Anr.