Dismissed¶33

Pooja Die Moulds v. Rajdhani Metal Store

Delhi HC17 Mar 2025CM(M)/496/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: affidavit of admission/denial of documents; 120 days outer limit; deemed admission of plaintiff's documents; strict and mandatory timelines; Commercial Court Act; commercial suits; written statements filed within time; CM(M) 496/2025 & CM(M) 497/2025; High Court of Delhi; Manoj Jain, J.; Unilin Beheer B.V. vs. Balaji Action Buildwell 2019 SCC OnLine Del 8498; Mayank Gupta vs. Aditya Birla Fashion 2023 SCC OnLine Del 1485; petitions dismissed in limine; orders dated 04.02.2025; Rajdhani Metal Store.

What did the court decide?

Filing of the affidavit of admission/denial is not a mere procedural requirement which can be cured and corrected on showing sufficient cause. ¶27

Pooja Die Moulds Vs Rajdhani Metal Store — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶33

Issue for consideration

Whether the orders dated 04.02.2025 of the Trial Court — deeming the plaintiff's documents admitted for failure of the defendants to file affidavits of admission/denial of documents within 120 days of service despite timely filing of written statements — should be interfered with in these petitions, a common issue arising in both.

¶16

Court's answer

Filing of the affidavit of admission/denial is not a mere procedural requirement which can be cured and corrected on showing sufficient cause.

¶27

Ratio / Principle

The timelines provided in the Commercial Court Act are strict and mandatory and no leverage can be afforded to any party which defaults thereof; consequently, no relief is available to defendants who fail to file affidavits of admission/denial within the permissible outer limit of 120 days (position adopted by this Court from the relied-upon precedents).

¶31

Key takeaways

On the facts — defendants served on 07.09.2024, written statements filed on 21.09.2024, affidavits of admission/denial not filed despite expiry of the 120-day outer limit — the petitions were found devoid of merit and dismissed in limine.ratio¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Commercial suits — affidavit of admission/denial of documents not filed within 120 days of service though written statements and statements of truth filed in time — Trial Court deemed plaintiff's documents admitted by orders dated 04.02.2025; CM(M) petitions by defendant firms challenging said orders dismissed in limine. Held: filing of the affidavit of admission/denial is an indispensable requirement of law and not a mere procedural requirement curable on showing sufficient cause; timelines under the Commercial Court Act are strict and mandatory and no leverage can be afforded to a defaulting party, placing reliance on Unilin Beheer B.V. vs. Balaji Action Buildwell 2019 SCC OnLine Del 8498 and Mayank Gupta vs. Aditya Birla Fashion 2023 SCC OnLine Del 1485.

¶1

$~55 & 56

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of Decision: 17^th March, 2025

¶4

- CM(M) 496/2025 & CM APPL. 15377/2025 POOJA DIE MOULDS

¶5

.....Petitioner Through: Mr. Gaurav Chaudhry and Mr. Rishab, Advocates.

¶6

versus

¶7

RAJDHANI METAL STORE

¶8

.....Respondent

¶9

Through: None.

¶10

56 + CM(M) 497/2025 & CM APPL. 15384/2025 VIJAY ENGINEERING WORKS

¶11

.....Petitioner Through: Mr. Gaurav Chaudhry and Mr. Rishab, Advocates.

¶12

versus

¶13

RAJDHANI METAL STORE

¶14

.....Respondent Through: None.

¶15

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

¶16

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.

¶17

The petitioners herein are defending two commercial suits filed by the same plaintiff i.e. M/s. Rajdhani Metal Store.

¶18

Admittedly, the defendants were served on 07.09.2024. They also filed their written statements on 21.09.2024.

¶19

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:1 8.03.2025 18:40:11

¶20

CM(M) 496/2025 & CM(M) 497/2025 1

¶21

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.

¶22

Such orders dated 04.02.2025 are under challenge.

¶23

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.

¶24

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.

¶25

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.

¶26

The position is no longer res-integra.

¶27

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.

¶28

Reference may be made to Unilin Beheer B.V. vs. Balaji Action

¶29

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:1 8.03.2025 18:40:11

¶30

CM(M) 496/2025 & CM(M) 497/2025 2

¶31

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.

¶32

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.

¶33

In view of the above, this Court does not find any merit in the present petitions. There are accordingly dismissed in limine .

¶34

(MANOJ JAIN) JUDGE

¶35

MARCH 17, 2025/ss/shs

¶36

Signature Not Verified

¶37

CM(M) 496/2025 & CM(M) 497/2025 3

¶38

Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:1 8.03.2025 18:40:11

Pooja Die Moulds v. Rajdhani Metal Store

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pooja Die Moulds v. Rajdhani Metal Store

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Akash Parmar Vs LIC Housing Finance Ltd. through Its Director Shri Sanjeev Gupta & Anr.

Ms Cassata Hospitality LLP and Anr. & Anr. Vs Randip Dhingra & Ors.

Vikas Dhawan & Anr. Vs Magnum International Trading Company Pvt. Ltd.

Seema Chandok & Anr. Vs Takshila Public School Education Society & Ors.

Sudha Gupta & Anr. Vs Gurmeet Singh Matharoo

Akhil Gupta Vs M/S Ops Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.

Ashish Sharma Vs Vidushi Pathak

Ashok Kumar Vs Manmohan Harjai

Jagadish Chander Chug Vs Punjab National Bank

Zync Global Private Limited Vs Punjab National Bank

North Delhi Municipal Corporation Vs Ankit Sharma

Babli Vs Ram Kumar & Anr.

Babli Vs Ram Kumar & Anr.

M/S vs Metallic Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S K S Engg. Works