Allowed

Sabitri Ghosh @ Sons Pvt. Ltd. v. Parichay Jain and Anr.

Gauhati HC12 May 2023CRP(IO)/130/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an Article 226 application, this Court held that the 90-day period for filing a written statement is directory, not mandatory. Setting aside the lower court order for dismissing the time grant, the Court directed the lower court to allow the petitioner to file the written statement on the next hearing date.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 21.02.2023 set aside; applicant allowed to file written statement on next date fixed.

Sabitri Ghosh @ Sons Pvt. Ltd. Vs Parichay… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Gauhati HC (2023)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010077612023

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : CRP(IO)/130/2023

¶5

SABITRI GHOSH @ SONS PVT. LTD.

¶6

A COMPANY DULY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT A.K. AZAD ROAD, REHABARI, GUWAHATI-8, DIST.- KAMRUP(M), ASSAM AND REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR SMT. SABITRI GHOSH, AGE 65 YEARS.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

PARICHAY JAIN AND ANR SON OF SRI MANOJ KUMAR JAIN, RESIDENT OF S.N. S ROAD, NEAR RAM JANKI MANDIR, CHABIPOOL, GUWAHATI-8, DISTRICT- KAMRUP(M), ASSAM.

¶9

2:RAJIV JAIN S/O- LATE SANTOSH KUMAR JAIN

¶10

RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO. 6-1A COAL DEPOT

¶11

REHABARI BILPAR LANE REHABARI GUWAHATI-8 DIST.- KAMRUP(M) ASSAM

¶12

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B BORAH

¶13

Page No.# 2/3

¶14

Advocate for the Respondent :

¶15

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA

¶16

ORDER

¶17

12.05.2023

¶18

Heard Mr. B. Borah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

¶19

This is an application filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 21.02.2023 passed by the learned Civil Judge No. 3, Kamrup (M), Guwahati in TS Case No. 439/2022.

¶20

The petitioner is a defendant No. 1 in the said Suit. They filed an application before the Court below seeking time to file the written statement. The reason for seeking time is that the defendant No. 1 is a Cancer patient.

¶21

The learned Trial Court dismissed the application only on the ground that the mandatory period of 90 days was expired.

¶22

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. B. Borah.

¶23

It is a settled position of law that the 90 days period for filing the written statement is not a mandatory one rather it is a directory one. This Court is of the opinion that while rejecting the prayer of the defendant no. 1, the Court below fail to exercise judicial mind and pass the order mechanically. Therefore, the impugned order dated 21.02.2023 refusing to give an opportunity to the defendant no. 1 to file the written statement is set aside and the defendant No. 1 is allowed to file the written statement before the Court below on the next date fixed of the case and thereafter the learned Court below shall dispose of the case in accordance with the procedure laid down by law.

¶24

Page No.# 3/3

¶25

7. With the aforesaid direction, the revision petition stands disposed of.

¶26

JUDGE

¶27

Comparing Assistant

Sabitri Ghosh @ Sons Pvt. Ltd. v. Parichay Jain and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sabitri Ghosh @ Sons Pvt. Ltd. v. Parichay Jain and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S New Tech Steel and Alloys Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Commissioner (Appeals) Customs ,Central Excise and Service Tax

Bindita Sen Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Punyeswari Devi and 2 Ors.

M/S Rahul Trading Co. Vs the Union of India and Anr.

Smti. Babli Ghosh and 3 Ors. Vs Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd.

Md. Sojibur Rahman Barbhuiya and 2 Ors. Vs National Insurance Co. Ltd.