Supreme Court Orders On Extension Of Limitation Not Applicable Where Defendant Was Not Prevented From Filing Written Statement: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has observed that the Supreme Court's orders on extension of limitation will not be applicable in circumstances where the defendant was not prevented from filing written statement.

It was on March 23 last year that the Supreme Court extended the limitation period for filing in all courts and tribunals with effect from March 15, 2020, until further orders. The Court had passed the order suo moto taking note of the difficulties posed by the COVID-19 pandemic. In July this year, it had passed an order extending the limitation period with effect from 14.03.2021 which was later recalled.

Justice Asha Menon was dealing with an application seeking condonation of delay in filing of the written statement filed by Brainlink International, the defendant, in a suit instituted by HT Media Limited against seeking to restraint the defendants from infringing it's trademark.

The defendants claimed that they were not served with the summons and had merely received an intimation about the suit having been filed and the order dated 28th April, 2020.

It was submitted that they entered appearance and filed reply to the interim application filed by the plaintiffs and was under bona fide belief that the defendants were not required to file a written statement of defence until and unless served with the summons of the suit.

Furthermore it was also submitted that during this time, the entire world was affected by the Covid-19 pandemic and therefore it was prayed that the delay in filing the written statement be condoned.

Reliance was placed on Supreme Court in Cognizance For Extension of Limitation, In re. (2020) 9 SCC 468 to argue that the limitation period was extended for all purposes.

On the other hand, the plaintiffs argued that the benefit of the Supreme Court decision in Cognizance For Extension of Limitation could not be given to the defendants as they were not prevented by the pandemic from taking various steps or participating in different proceedings before different forums.

"It is thus, more than apparent that the conditions that prevailed due to the pandemic did not actually impact the defendants to prevent them from interacting with their counsel and filing appropriate applications and replies before this court. To that extent, the orders of the Supreme Court in Cognizance For Extension of Limitation (supra) would not be applicable to the facts of the present case," the Court said.

It added:

"Another factor that needs to be noted in the present case is that, the parties were referred to mediation on 22nd February, 2021 and the report was received on 30th June, 2021 that the mediation efforts had failed. Thereafter, on 6th July, 2021, the plaintiffs applied for summary judgment. That seems to have woken up the defendants to the need of filing a written statement and the same has been accompanied with the application for condonation of delay."

The Court therefore observed that the defendants were fully aware of the present case and that they had participated on various dates from 29th May, 2020, including in mediation, and chose not to file their written statement.

Dismissing the application, the Court ordered thus:

"Had they been not represented by a counsel, a probable view could have been taken that the procedure was unknown to the defendants. However, they have been assisted by counsel throughout and the very number of the case would have flagged to them that this was a commercial suit, which entailed strict timelines. The plea of the learned counsel for the defendants that since the summons had not been served to them, the time had not begun to run, cannot be accepted. Thus, on both grounds, there is no merit found in the present application."

Title: HT MEDIA LIMITED & ANR. v. BRAINLINK INTERNATIONAL, INC. & ANR.

Click Here To Read Order