Can time limit for filing written statement be extended? Calcutta High Court explains
The Calcutta High Court observed that “conduct of the defendant is also to be looked into” and accepted the written statement of the defendant.
written statement
Kerala High Court upholds Commercial Court’s refusal to accept delayed written statement
Referring to the amended portion of Commercial Courts Act, 2015 with Supreme Court’s interpretation, Kerala High Court found the Commercial Court’s refusal for acceptance after delay in filing written statement beyond 120 days justified.
Bar under Order II Rule 2 CPC cannot apply to an amendment sought on an existing suit; Supreme Court lays down Principles for Amendment of Pleadings
Supreme Court: On the question as to whether Order II Rule 2 CPC can be made applicable to an application for amendment
AP HC | Signatures on the Vakalat and the Written Statement cannot be considered as signatures of comparable and assured standard for want of expert opinion under S. 45 Evidence Act
Andhra Pradesh High Court: Ninala Surya, J., decided to not interfere with the impugned order and dismissed the civil writ petition. The
Ker HC | A case of wanton negligence and callousness of petitioner; HC rejects application for amendment making inconsistent and alternative pleadings in written statement
Kerala High Court: V.G.Arun, J., held that no amendment can be allowed in written statement where it seeks to change former admissions.
When can decree on admission be passed? Madras HC explains how general admission of facts v. admission of claim, makes difference
Madras High Court: Dr G. Jayachandran, J., refused to pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff who relied on general admission
Kar HC | Addition of a new ground of defence or substituting or altering defence or taking inconsistent pleas in written statement would not be objectionable, while adding, altering or substituting a new cause of action in the plaint may be objectionable
Karnataka High Court: Krishna S. Dixit J. set aside the impugned order and allowed the petition. The facts of the case are
Del HC | Permission to amend written statement after plaintiff’s evidence denied in view of proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC
Delhi High Court: Pratibha M. Singh, J., dismissed a petition filed against the order of the trial court whereby it had rejected the
Bom HC | S. 16 of Commercial Courts Act to be interpreted literally; amendments brought in CPC applicable only to Commercial Disputes of a ‘Specified Value’
Bombay High Court: S.J. Kathawalla, J., addressed the review petition against its own Judgment passed in the case of Axis Bank Ltd.
Del HC | Accused’s application for advance copy of questionnaire in terms of S. 313(5) CrPC rejected in absence of any exceptional circumstances
Delhi High Court: Chander Shekhar, J. dismissed a criminal revision petition filed against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge whereby he refused
Del HC | Plea taken by defendant in written statement is wholly irrelevant at the stage of deciding Or. 7 R. 11 CPC application
Delhi High Court: Vinod Goel, J. dismissed a petition impugning the order passed by Civil Judge whereby defendant’s application under Order 7 Rule 11
Bom HC | Time period fixed under Or. 8 R. 1 CPC is directory in nature; delay in filing written statement condoned
Bombay High Court at Goa: C.V. Bhadang, J., condoned a delay of 50 days in filing the written statement. As per facts
Pat HC | Documents sought to be produced by defendant must be filed with written statement – leave of Court required for subsequent production thereof
Patna High Court: The Bench of Ashwani Kumar Singh, J. dismissed an application filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,
J&K HC | Petition for additional pleas rejected as nothing new pleaded in written statement
Jammu and Kashmir High Court: A Bench of Sanjeev Kumar, J. dismissed a petition filed against the order of a Subordinate Civil
In light of non-compliance of Order VI Rule 17 CPC, application for amendment of written statement rightly rejected: Bom HC
Bombay High Court: A Bench of M.S. Sonak, J. dismissed a petition and stated that there is no jurisdictional error in the
Delay in ‘filing’ and ‘re-filing’ written statement to be considered on different footing
Delhi High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Jayant Nath, J. allowed an appeal filed against the previous order whereby the right
Order passed by the State Commission on the basis of an alleged settlement between the parties cannot be held valid in the absence of a written settlement
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC): A Division Bench comprising of R.K. Agarwal, J., M. Shreesha, Member, allowed an appeal filed against
Court free to invoke provisions of Order 8 Rule 10 CPC if defendant fails to file WS; permanent injunction granted against use of trademark CBN NEWS
Delhi High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Jayant Nath, J. decreed a suit for permanent injunction by invoking the provisions
Time period under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC for filing written statement is directory and not mandatory in nature
Jharkhand High Court: A Single Judge Bench of Shree Chandrashekhar, J., allowed a writ petition filed by the petitioner against the order
Defendant allowed to file written statement despite the defence being struck off
Punjab and Haryana High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Arun Palli, J. allowed the defendant to file the written statement