Rohit Sharma Vs A.M Market Place Pvt Ltd.

Rohit Sharma Vs A.M Market Place Pvt Ltd. : Failure to file a written statement within 120 days from the date of service results in an absolute forfeiture of this right

Introduction:The case of Rohit Sharma Vs A.M Market Place Pvt Ltd. was adjudicated by the High Court of Delhi concerning issues related to service of summons, procedural compliance, and forfeiture of the right to file a written statement under the Commercial Courts Act. The primary dispute revolved around whether the appellant, Rohit Sharma, was properly served and whether his right to file a written statement was rightly denied.

Detailed Factual Background:A.M Market Place Pvt Ltd., the plaintiff, operates an e-commerce platform under the brand name “LIMEROAD.” It alleged that Rohit Sharma and others were running a fraudulent scheme by setting up a website called www.limeroadwinner.in, falsely posing as representatives of the plaintiff’s prize department. The fraudulent website offered lotteries and lucky draws using the plaintiff’s brand name, deceiving individuals into depositing money in exchange for purported rewards such as LED televisions, cars, and laptops.

Summons were issued to the appellant-defendant No.1 (Rohit Sharma): by all modes on August 2, 2018. The trial court deemed him served after a postal remark indicated that the summons was refused by his mother. Since he did not appear, the trial court proceeded ex parte against him on December 19, 2018. Subsequently, Rohit Sharma filed an application to recall the ex parte order, contending that he had no knowledge of the proceedings and that the refusal of service by his mother was erroneous. The trial court allowed the recall of the ex parte order but denied him the right to file a written statement, as the 120-day period prescribed under the Commercial Courts Act had elapsed.

Detailed Procedural Background:The appellant filed an appeal against the order of the single judge denying him the right to file a written statement. His primary contention was that he was not properly served, and thus, the 120-day period should not be counted from an alleged improper service. The appeal also sought condonation of a 263-day delay in refiling.

Issues Involved in the Case:Whether service of summons through speed post with a remark of refusal by the appellant’s mother constituted valid service under the CPC and Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018. Whether the appellant’s right to file a written statement could be denied due to non-filing within the statutory period under the Commercial Courts Act.

The respondent-plaintiff contended that:The order of the trial court was justified as service was deemed valid when the postal report stated that the appellant’s mother refused service.Under the Commercial Courts Act, failure to file a written statement within 120 days results in forfeiture, which cannot be relaxed.The delay in filing/re-filing the appeal was excessive and unjustified.

Detailed Discussion on Judgments Cited by Parties and Their Context The court referred to the following judgments:M/s. Print Pak Machinery Ltd. vs. M/s. Jay Kay Papers Converters, AIR 1979 Del 217 (F.B.) – It was held that in case of conflict between CPC and High Court Rules, the latter would prevail. This supported the view that service via speed post with refusal was deemed valid. Iridium India Telecom Ltd. vs. Motorola Inc., (2005) 2 SCC 145 – This case reaffirmed the precedence of special procedural rules over general CPC provisions. 

SCG Contracts (India) Private Limited vs. K.S. Chamankar Infrastructure Private Limited & Ors., (2019) 12 SCC 210 – It upheld that a defendant loses the right to file a written statement if it is not filed within 120 days of service under the Commercial Courts Act.

OKU Tech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sangeet Agarwal & Ors., 2016 SCC OnLine Del 6601 – This case confirmed that the 120-day limitation is mandatory, and no extension can be granted.

Detailed Reasoning and Analysis of the Judge:

The High Court analyzed the validity of the service of summons and whether the appellant was rightly deemed served. The court held that the trial court correctly proceeded ex parte as per the order dated September 25, 2018, deeming service complete based on the postal remark. The appellant’s argument that he was unaware of the proceedings lacked substantiation, especially since no affidavit from his mother was filed to refute the postal authority’s report.

Regarding the right to file a written statement, the court reaffirmed the mandatory nature of the 120-day limitation under the Commercial Courts Act. The court noted that procedural amendments aimed to ensure swift disposal of commercial cases, and allowing extensions beyond statutory limits would defeat the legislative intent. Since the appellant had failed to challenge the September 25, 2018 order deeming him served, the consequences of delayed filing were unavoidable.

Final Decision The High Court dismissed the appeal and held that the trial court’s decision was legally sound. It ruled that the appellant had been properly served and that his right to file a written statement was rightly forfeited. The delay in refiling the appeal was deemed excessive and unjustified.

Law Settled in This Case:Deemed Service: A refusal of service by a family member at the defendant’s residence constitutes valid service under procedural law. 

Strict Application of 120-Day Limitation: Under the Commercial Courts Act, failure to file a written statement within 120 days from the date of service results in an absolute forfeiture of this right.High Court (Original Side) Rules Prevail Over CPC:

In case of procedural conflict, the High Court Rules will govern the matter.Necessity of Challenging Foundational Orders: If a party does not challenge an initial procedural order (such as an order deeming service valid), it cannot later contest consequential orders based on that ruling.

Case Title: Rohit Sharma Vs A.M Market Place Pvt Ltd.

Date of Order: March 3, 2021

Case No.: FAO(OS)(COMM) 37/2021 & CM APPLs. 8493-8495/2021

Name of Court: High Court of Delhi

Name of Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Manmohan and Hon’ble Ms. Justice Asha Menon

Disclaimer:The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman,IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney] ,High Court of Delhi