Ms. Rajilaxmi Oils Vs. Kriti Nutrients Ltd.

Case Title: Ms. Rajilaxmi Oils Vs. Kriti Nutrients Ltd.

Order Date: 6th October 2025

Case Number: M.P. No. 4924/2023

Neutral Citation: 2025 MPHC IND 29084

Name of Court: High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore

Hon’ble Judges: Shri Justice Vivek Rusia and Shri Justice Binod Kumar Dwivedi

This case arises from a dispute between Ms. Rajilaxmi Oils and Kriti Nutrients Ltd. involving trademark and copyright claims. The petitioner, Ms. Rajilaxmi Oils, filed a civil suit under Section 142 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and Section 60 of the Copyright Act, 1957, in 2020 before the Commercial Court, Indore. Subsequently, the respondent filed another suit against the petitioner in 2021, also in the Commercial Court, Indore. During the pendency of these suits, the respondent obtained an ex-parte injunction from the Commercial Court, Delhi, which led to the seizure of the petitioner’s products. The petitioner alleged wrongful seizure and continued non-release of their goods even after the dismissal of the Delhi suit.

Due to these circumstances, the petitioner delayed filing their written statement in the main suit before the Commercial Court, Indore. They applied for condonation of this delay and for their written statement to be taken on record. The trial court denied this application, holding that the delay was unjustified and that the written statement was filed beyond the 120-day statutory limit prescribed by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The petitioner challenged this denial by filing the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

The dispute hinged mainly on whether the trial court was justified in refusing to allow the belated filing of the written statement. The court carefully analyzed the provisions of Order VIII Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, which governs the time limit for filing written statements. These provisions stipulate that a defendant must file a written statement within 30 days of service of summons but may be granted an extension by the court for reasons recorded in writing, provided it does not exceed 120 days. Beyond this 120-day period, the right to file a written statement is forfeited, and the court is not empowered to allow further extensions.

The court gave detailed consideration to the petitioner’s submissions that the delay was caused due to parallel suits and the impact of an ex-parte injunction obtained in the Delhi court, which impaired their ability to file the written statement on time. The court rejected these arguments, emphasizing that the Delhi suit was dismissed well before the filing of the written statement and that no genuine effort was made to file it within the statutory period after that dismissal.

The court referred extensively to authoritative Supreme Court judgments including SCG Contracts India Private Limited v. K.S. Chamankar Infrastructure Private Limited (2019 12 SCC 210), Raj Process Equipment and Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. Honest Derivatives Pvt. Ltd. (2022 SCC Online SC 1877), and Prakash Corporates v. Dee Vee Projects Limited (2022 5 SCC 112), which underscore the imperative of maintaining strict timelines in commercial litigation to ensure speedy justice. The court noted that these rulings maintain that the Commercial Courts Act’s 120-day period for filing written statements is mandatory and not extendable except within that window.

Ultimately, the court held that the trial court had rightly exercised its discretion and abided by statutory mandates in refusing to permit the belated written statement. The petition was dismissed as devoid of merit, affirming that procedural timelines in commercial suits are strict and that delay without sufficient cause cannot be condoned in the interest of expedient dispute resolution.

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