Allowed

Goomo Orbit Corporate and Leisure Travels(I) Pvt. Ltd. v. G.I.Retail Private Limited and 5 others

Madras HC13 Jul 2021A/2327/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court accorded leave to the sixth defendant to file a belated written statement, condoning a 365-day delay attributed to the restoration of the suit by the Division Bench and pandemic moratorium, on the condition of payment of costs to the plaintiff.

What did the court decide?

File the written statement of record on payment of Rs.10,000/- costs to the plaintiff on or before 30.07.2021.

Goomo Orbit Corporate and Leisure Travels(I) Pvt. Ltd… — Company and Corporate | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

A.No.2327 of 2021 in C.S.No.194 of 2019

¶2

DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.

¶3

This application is filed by the sixth defendant to condone delay

¶4

of 365 days in filing the written statement in C.S.No.194 of 2019

¶5

2.From the affidavit filed along with this petition, it appears that the suit which was taken as commercial dispute by this Court granting leave to sue was challenged in Application No.3847 of 2019. This Court on 26.08.2019, while disposing Application No.3847 of 2019 and other applications, had revoked the leave granted to sue. Thereafter, the plaintiff aggrieved by revocation of leave had filed O.S.A. which came to be allowed by order dated 15.09.2020. Thus, the suit has been restored. The sixth defendant thereafter has presented the written statement on 12.03.2021 with

¶6

the present application to condone the delay.

¶7

In normal circumstances, as per the provisions of the

¶8

1/4

¶9

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶10

Commercial Courts Act, Order VIII Rule (1), written statement ought to be filed within 30 days from the date of receipt of the suit summon. For reasons to be recorded in writing, the Court may permit the defendant to file written statement beyond 30 days but it shall not be later than 120 days from the date of service of summons.

¶11

In the present case, suit summon was served on the defendant on 20.06.2019. As stated above, in normal course, the written statement

¶12

ought to have been filed within 30 days i.e., 20.07.2019. However, the defendant thought fit to file application to revoke the leave to sue and also succeeded. Therefore, the limitation can be reckoned only from the date of

¶13

the order passed by the Division Bench reversing the order of the learned Single Judge revoking the leave to sue. The Division Bench order is dated 15.09.2020, the date on which the suit is restored. The written statement of the appellant/sixth defendant is filed on 12.03.2021. Admittedly, there is delay in filing the written statement but sufficient cause has been shown by the defendant. Firstly, their application to revoke the leave, which was

¶14

2/4

¶15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶16

allowed by the learned Single Judge, was later reversed by the Division Bench. Secondly, the pandemic situation which has impelled the Hon'ble Supreme Court to issue moratorium to reckon limitation period between 15.03.2020 and 14.03.2021. Hence, the delay is condoned on condition to

¶17

pay a cost of Rs.10,000/- to the plaintiff on or before 30.07.2021 . On compliance of the condition, the written statement shall be taken on file.

¶18

Call the matter on 04.08.2021.
13.07.2021
vri 1/2

¶19

3/4

¶20

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶21

DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.

¶22

VRI

¶23

A.No.2327 of 2021
in C.S.No.194 of 2019
13.07.2021

¶24

4/4

¶25

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

Goomo Orbit Corporate and Leisure Travels(I) Pvt. Ltd. v. G.I.Retail Private Limited and 5 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Goomo Orbit Corporate and Leisure Travels(I) Pvt. Ltd. v. G.I.Retail Private Limited and 5 others

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

Google India Pvt.Ltd. Vs Kotapadi Jayaram and 53 others

M/s Rkkr Steels Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/s.Radha Vyapar(India) Private Limited, Rep.by its authorised signatory,Mr.Yashpal Sharma.

The Malayala Manorama Co.Ltd Vs M/s.Matrimony .Com Limited

S.Khaja Mohideen Vs Star Music 2others

Yes Bank Limited Vs M/s. Uniply Decor Limited and 3 others

M/s.Mrf Ltd. Vs Sumit Gumber