The Delhi High Court upheld a commercial court order striking off a written statement after an advocate casually said “De denge” while ignoring cost payment directions. The Court called the excuse flimsy and stressed strict compliance with timelines under the Commercial Courts Act.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition filed by M/s Om Fire Safety Company Pvt Ltd, which had challenged an order passed by a commercial court that struck off its written statement due to failure to pay costs imposed for delay.
The case highlights the strict approach taken by courts under the Commercial Courts Act to ensure timely conduct of proceedings and discourage casual behaviour by litigants.
The dispute began when the petitioner, M/s Om Fire Safety Company Pvt Ltd, failed to file its written statement within the legally prescribed time in a commercial suit.
Taking a lenient view, the commercial court allowed the delay and condoned it, but this relief was made conditional upon the petitioner paying certain costs.
These costs were meant to compensate the opposing party for the delay and inconvenience caused by the adjournment. However, despite being granted this opportunity, the petitioner did not comply with the condition and failed to make the payment.
When the matter was taken up again, the court questioned the petitioner’s counsel regarding the non-payment of costs. Initially, the counsel claimed ignorance about the issue and asked for another passover.
Later, she responded in a casual tone, saying,
“De denge (I will give it).”
This response did not impress the commercial court, which viewed it as a lack of seriousness towards court orders. Consequently, the commercial court decided to strike off the written statement of the petitioner as a penalty for non-compliance.
Aggrieved by this decision, the petitioner approached the Delhi High Court, arguing that the costs were not paid due to confusion about whom the payment should be made to.
However, Justice Girish Kathpalia strongly rejected this justification. He described the explanation as “flimsy” and pointed out that even if there was any doubt regarding the recipient of the payment, the petitioner’s counsel failed to seek clarification from the court.
The High Court clearly stated that the purpose of imposing costs is not merely symbolic or technical. It is aimed at compensating the party that suffers due to unnecessary delay in proceedings. In this context,
Justice Kathpalia observed,
“In any case, where the order is silent as to whom the cost is to be paid, it is clear that the cost has to be paid to the opposite side which has suffered adjournment. I find the excuse for non-payment of cost completely flimsy. It is not a matter of the amount of the cost. It is a matter of compensating the other side who suffers due to default. The explanation for non-payment of cost is completely flimsy and does not appeal.”
The Court also emphasised that the Commercial Courts Act was specifically introduced to provide speedy resolution of commercial disputes and avoid the long delays commonly seen in regular civil suits. Any interpretation or conduct that weakens this objective goes against the very purpose of the law.
The Court remarked,
“Any interpretation of any legal provision that dilutes the provision would militate against the basic philosophy behind creation of commercial courts. The commercial courts and the processes adopted by the same cannot be allowed to be dealt with in such casual manner, so as to convert the same into general civil suit.”
Reinforcing its strict stance, the High Court concluded that parties who fail to adhere to procedural timelines, even after being granted leniency, cannot expect repeated indulgence.
The Court made it clear that such behaviour only leads to unnecessary prolonging of litigation and defeats the intent of fast-track commercial justice. It observed,
“Where a litigant does not strictly adhere to the timelines and even thereafter, despite indulgence extended by the trial court, opts to somehow protract the proceedings, no further indulgence can be extended,”
the Court stated.
In view of these observations, the Delhi High Court upheld the order of the commercial court striking off the written statement of the petitioner.
ALSO READ: Retired IPS Officers Challenge New Pension Rule: Supreme Court Seeks Reply From Centre
The decision sends a strong message that courts will not tolerate careless and casual attitudes in commercial litigation and that compliance with court directions, especially regarding costs and timelines, is mandatory.
Advocates Jatin Sapra and Jahanvi Paliwal represented the petitioner, while Advocate Navneet Sharma appeared on behalf of the respondent.
Case Title:
M/s Om Fire Safety Company Pvt Ltd v. Umakant
Read Judgement:
Click Here To Read More Reports on Pension
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
