Facts
The petitioner (original defendant) was granted conditional leave to defend a commercial suit by the Commercial Court on 27.11.2025, provided they deposit 25% of the suit amount within 30 days
Source reference: p. 2, para 2The petitioner failed to make the deposit within the stipulated time due to the prolonged critical illness and subsequent death of his father on 23.01.2026
Source reference: p. 2-3, para 5An application (Exh. 36) for extension of time was filed before the Commercial Court but was rejected on 06.02.2026
Source reference: p. 2, para 4The petitioner then moved the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution, producing medical records and a death certificate to substantiate the delay
Source reference: p. 3, para 5During the proceedings, the petitioner produced a cheque for Rs. 8,83,293, representing the 25% deposit
Source reference: p. 3, para 7Issues
1. Whether the Commercial Court erred in rejecting the application for extension of time to deposit the conditional amount despite the petitioner showing sufficient cause (death of a father)
Source reference: p. 2, para 42. Whether the High Court should exercise its supervisory jurisdiction to allow the petitioner to comply with the condition for leave to defend to ensure the suit is contested on merits
Source reference: p. 4, para 10Law Applied
The Court exercised its extraordinary supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
Source reference: p. 1, para 2The legal principle applied pertains to the discretionary power of the court to grant "conditional leave to defend" in commercial or summary suits, where the right to contest is predicated upon a security deposit
Source reference: p. 2, para 2The court further relied on the principle of equity and justice, allowing extensions of procedural timelines when "sufficient cause" (such as a death in the family) is established and the respondent offers no objection
Source reference: p. 4, para 8-9Reasoning
The High Court observed that the petitioner provided concrete evidence, including hospital prescriptions and a death certificate from the Municipal Corporation, Panipat, proving his father’s critical illness and death during the period prescribed for the deposit
Source reference: p. 3, para 5The Court found that these circumstances constituted a valid reason for the delay.
Source reference: p. 3, para 5The Court further noted that the petitioner demonstrated bona fides by presenting a cheque for the required amount (Rs. 8,83,293) in court
Source reference: p. 3, para 7A pivotal factor in the Court's reasoning was the respondent’s "fair submission" that they had no reservation regarding the extension of time or the grant of leave to defend upon deposit
Source reference: p. 4, para 8Consequently, the Court determined that the technical delay should not deprive the defendant of the opportunity to contest the suit
Source reference: p. 4, para 10Holding
The High Court allowed the petition in part and quashed the Commercial Court’s order dated 06.02.2026
The Court granted the extension and directed the petitioner to deposit the cheque before the Commercial Court by the following day
Source reference: p. 4, para 9The Court held that upon such deposit, the defendant’s written submissions must be taken on record and the matter be converted into a "long cause commercial suit"
Source reference: p. 5, para 10The Court also allowed for the deposit of any minor deficiency in the computed amount within a short timeframe subject to the Commercial Court’s oversight
Source reference: p. 5, para 10Original Court PDF
BHATIA INTERNATIONAL (INDIA) THROUGH ITS PARTNER GAGNISH BHATIAvsM/S. MITTAL COTEX INDIA PVT. LTD.
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in