Novenco Building & Industry Vs Xero Energy Engineering Solutions : 24.06.2026:OMP No. 123 of 2026 in COMS No. 13 of 2024:Himachal Pradesh HC:H.J. Ajay Mohan Goel
The Court considered a dispute concerning the filing of a written statement beyond the statutory period prescribed under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The case arose from allegations that the defendants failed to file their written statement within the maximum permissible period after service of summons in a commercial intellectual property dispute.
The principal question before the Court was whether the delay in filing the written statement could be condoned and whether a reply filed to an interim injunction application could be treated as a written statement in a commercial suit.
After examining the material on record and the submissions of the parties, court observed that the Commercial Courts Act prescribes a strict and mandatory outer limit of 120 days for filing a written statement and that courts possess no authority to extend this period thereafter.
The Court held that once the statutory period of 120 days expires, the defendant forfeits the right to file a written statement. The Court further emphasized that permitting a reply to an injunction application to be treated as a written statement after expiry of the statutory period would defeat the legislative intent behind the Commercial Courts Act.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the defendants’ application seeking condonation of delay and allowed the plaintiff’s application seeking closure of the defendants’ right to file a written statement. The written statement filed by the defendants was ordered to be struck off from the record.
Disclaimer: Readers are advised not treat this as a substitute for legal advise as it is based on limited information and is intended solely for general informational purposes.
Comprehensive Analytical Legal Article
Commercial Courts Act and Written Statement Deadlines
Introduction
The judgment delivered by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in Novenco Building & Industry A/S v. Xero Energy Engineering Solutions Private Limited & Another is an important reaffirmation of the strict procedural framework governing commercial litigation in India. The decision highlights the legislative intent behind the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, which seeks to ensure speedy adjudication of commercial disputes by imposing rigid timelines for filing pleadings.
The ruling is particularly significant for businesses, intellectual property owners, commercial litigants, and legal practitioners because it reiterates that courts cannot dilute the mandatory timelines prescribed for filing written statements in commercial suits. The decision also addresses an increasingly litigated question, whether a reply filed to an interim injunction application can subsequently be treated as a written statement when the statutory period for filing the written statement has expired.
Factual and Procedural Background
The plaintiff instituted a commercial intellectual property suit in June 2024 alleging infringement of its intellectual property rights. Summons were issued and the defendants were served in July 2024.
Instead of filing a written statement, the defendants challenged the maintainability of the suit by filing an application under Order VII Rule 11 dated 28.08.2024 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The High Court accepted the application and rejected the plaint on the ground of non-compliance with Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, which relates to mandatory pre-institution mediation.
The plaintiff challenged the order before the Division Bench of the High Court, but the appeal was dismissed. Thereafter, the plaintiff approached the Supreme Court.
By judgment dated 27 October 2025, the Supreme Court set aside both the order of the Single Judge and the Division Bench and restored the commercial suit to the file of the High Court for adjudication on merits. The Supreme Court observed that in cases involving continuing infringement of intellectual property rights, urgency must be assessed in the context of continuing injury and public interest and that mere delay in instituting a suit does not negate urgency.
Following restoration of the suit, the defendants filed an application seeking condonation of delay in filing their written statement along with the written statement itself. The plaintiff simultaneously sought closure of the defendants' right to file the written statement on the ground that the statutory period of 120 days had already expired.
The controversy therefore centered on whether the written statement could still be taken on record and whether any alternative procedural device could save the defendants from the consequences of delay.
Dispute Before the Court
The principal issue before the Court was whether the defendants had forfeited their right to file a written statement under the Commercial Courts Act.
The defendants argued that because the plaint had initially been rejected and remained so until the Supreme Court restored the suit, the period during which the suit stood rejected should not be counted for determining limitation for filing the written statement. They further contended that the delay was only 33 days and deserved condonation.
As an alternative argument, the defendants submitted that the reply already filed by them to the plaintiff’s application for temporary injunction should be treated as their written statement because the reply substantially addressed the allegations contained in the plaint.
The plaintiff argued that even after excluding the period during which the plaint remained rejected, the aggregate period exceeded the statutory limit of 120 days. The plaintiff further contended that the Commercial Courts Act leaves no discretion with courts once the prescribed period expires and that a reply to an injunction application cannot be substituted for a written statement in commercial litigation.
Reasoning and Analysis of the Court
The Court first examined the chronology of events and calculated the relevant periods. It noted that approximately 58 days had elapsed between service of summons on 26.06.2024 and rejection of the plaint. After the Supreme Court restored the suit on 27 October 2025, the defendants filed their written statement only on 16 March 2026. Even after granting the defendants every possible benefit, the total period exceeded the statutory ceiling of 120 days.
The Court rejected the argument that limitation would recommence only after the High Court formally restored the suit. It observed that the defendants were represented before the Supreme Court and were fully aware of the restoration order. Even from the date on which the High Court directed restoration of the suit, the written statement was not filed within the permissible period.
A substantial part of the judgment focuses on the statutory scheme introduced by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The Court referred to the special amendments made to Order V Rule 1, Order VIII Rule 1, and Order VIII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. These provisions require a defendant to file a written statement within 30 days, extendable up to a maximum of 120 days from the date of service of summons. Upon expiry of 120 days, the defendant forfeits the right to file the written statement and the court is prohibited from taking it on record.
The Court placed significant reliance upon SCG Contracts (India) Private Limited v. K.S. Chamankar Infrastructure Private Limited & Others, (2019) 12 SCC 210, wherein the Supreme Court categorically held that courts possess no power to extend time beyond 120 days in commercial suits. The judgment was treated as binding authority conclusively settling the issue.
The Court then examined the defendants’ alternative plea that their reply to the interim injunction application should be treated as a written statement.
For this proposition, the defendants relied upon:
Kuldeep Umraosingh Ostwal & Another v. Chandrakant N. Patel & Others, 2010 (2) Mh LJ
and Methodist Episcopal Church, Nagpur & Others v. Methodist Church in India, Mumbai, 2009 (4) Mh LJ.
These Bombay High Court decisions had recognized circumstances in ordinary civil suits where a detailed reply to a temporary injunction application could be adopted as a written statement, particularly when such reply had been filed within the permissible period and reflected an intention to contest the suit.
However, the Court distinguished those authorities on the ground that they were rendered in the context of ordinary civil litigation and before the strict regime introduced by the Commercial Courts Act became applicable.
The Court instead found persuasive the reasoning of the Bombay High Court in:
Flipkart India Pvt. Ltd. & Another v. Flipkart India Pvt. Ltd. & Another, 2020 SCC OnLine Bom 664.
In that case, the Bombay High Court held that once the statutory period expires in a commercial suit, a defendant cannot indirectly revive a forfeited right by seeking to convert a reply to an interim application into a written statement.
The Court agreed with this approach and held that permitting such a course would effectively nullify the mandatory legislative mandate. The right that accrues to the plaintiff upon expiry of the statutory period is substantive in nature and cannot be defeated through procedural devices.
The Court emphasized that a written statement in a commercial suit must comply with the special procedural framework created by the Commercial Courts Act. Any interpretation permitting circumvention of the statutory embargo would undermine the objective of expeditious disposal of commercial disputes.
Final Decision of the Court
The Court concluded that the defendants had failed to file their written statement within the mandatory period prescribed by the Commercial Courts Act.
The application seeking condonation of delay in filing the written statement was dismissed. The Court further rejected the request to treat the reply filed to the interim injunction application as a written statement.
The plaintiff’s application seeking closure of the defendants’ right to file a written statement was allowed. Consequently, the written statement filed by the defendants was ordered to be struck off the record and both applications were disposed of.
Point of Law Settled
The judgment reaffirms that in commercial suits governed by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, the outer limit of 120 days for filing a written statement is mandatory and non-extendable. Once the period expires, the defendant forfeits the right to file a written statement and the court lacks jurisdiction to grant any further extension.
The decision further clarifies that a defendant cannot circumvent this statutory embargo by seeking to have a reply filed to an interim injunction application treated as a written statement after expiry of the prescribed period. Such an approach would defeat the legislative objective of ensuring speedy and efficient resolution of commercial disputes.
Title of the Case: Novenco Building & Industry Vs Xero Energy Engineering Solutions Private Limited & Another
Date of Judgment/Order: 24.06.2026
Case Number: OMP No. 123 of 2026 & OMP No. 213 of 2026 in COMS No. 13 of 2024
Name of Court: High Court of Himachal Pradesh
Name of Hon'ble Judge: Justice Ajay Mohan Goel
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
Disclaimer: Images used herein do not reflect actual images used in Judgement and that the same are for illustrative purpose only. Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advice as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.
Suggested SEO Titles
Commercial Courts Act: Himachal Pradesh High Court Refuses Delayed Written Statement Beyond 120 Days
No Extension Beyond 120 Days: High Court Reiterates Mandatory Timeline for Written Statements in Commercial Suits
Novenco Building v. Xero Energy: Important Ruling on Written Statement Filing Deadlines
Can Reply to Injunction Application Be Treated as Written Statement? High Court Answers
Commercial Litigation in India: Strict Enforcement of Order VIII Rule 1 CPC
High Court Strikes Off Written Statement Filed Beyond Statutory Period in Commercial Suit
SCG Contracts Principle Reaffirmed by Himachal Pradesh High Court
Commercial Courts Act and Written Statement Deadlines: Latest Judicial Interpretation
Intellectual Property Commercial Suit: Court Closes Defendant's Right to File Written Statement
Key Commercial Litigation Judgment on Forfeiture of Right to File Written Statement
Suggested SEO Tags
Commercial Courts Act 2015, Commercial Litigation, Written Statement, Order VIII Rule 1 CPC, Order V Rule 1 CPC, Order VIII Rule 10 CPC, Commercial Disputes, Intellectual Property Litigation, Trademark Litigation, Patent Litigation, IP Enforcement, Civil Procedure Code, Limitation for Written Statement, SCG Contracts Case, Flipkart India Case, Commercial Suit Procedure, High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Novenco Building Case, Xero Energy Engineering Solutions, Delay Condonation, Commercial Court Practice, Mandatory Timelines, Litigation Strategy, Civil Litigation India, Procedural Law, Commercial Dispute Resolution, AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman, IPAdjutor
Headnote of the Judgment
Novenco Building & Industry A/S v. Xero Energy Engineering Solutions Pvt. Ltd. & Another, High Court of Himachal Pradesh, OMP No. 123 of 2026 & OMP No. 213 of 2026 in COMS No. 13 of 2024, decided on 24.06.2026. The Court considered whether a written statement filed beyond the statutory period prescribed under the Commercial Courts Act could be taken on record and whether a reply to an interim injunction application could be treated as a written statement. Holding that the outer limit of 120 days for filing a written statement in a commercial suit is mandatory and non-extendable, the Court dismissed the defendants’ application for condonation of delay, rejected the request to treat the injunction reply as a written statement, allowed the plaintiff’s application seeking closure of the defendants’ right to file a written statement, and struck the written statement off the record.
Info-graphic Thumbnail Prompt
Create a 3D Hyper-Realistic 8K Quality Legal Infographic, Aspect Ratio 14:9. Modern corporate-commercial litigation theme. Central visual showing a large countdown timeline marked “30 Days → 120 Days → Right Forfeited”. Display a commercial dispute dashboard with legal documents, contract files, intellectual property symbols, courtroom-style scales of justice, digital clocks, deadline alerts, and compliance indicators. Include a comparison table showing “Writtn Statement within 120 Days = Permissible” and “Beyond 120 Days = Not Permissible”. Add a graph illustrating expiry of statutory timeline and forfeiture of rights. Show a rejected document icon representing a struck-off written statement. Use sophisticated blue, silver and professional legal-tech aesthetics. Use minimal text such as “Novenco Building & Industry Vs Xero Energy Engineering" "Commercial Suit”, "HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT" “120 Days Limit”, “No Extension”, “Written Statement Struck Off”. Include business dispute visuals and procedural timeline flow. Avoid using names of courts, lawyers, national flags, tricolor, Ashoka Emblem, or any government insignia. Use generic professional imagery and commercial litigation concepts. Use attached image as Image of lawyer in lawyers dress at left bottom corner which should cover 20 % of entire image area.
No comments:
Post a Comment