Zillion Infraprojects Private Limited Vs Tenova Technologies Private Limited (Karnataka High Court)
The Karnataka High Court has intervened in a protracted commercial dispute between Zillion Infraprojects Private Limited and Tenova Technologies Private Limited, which has been ongoing since 2009. The case, Zillion Infraprojects Private Limited Vs Tenova Technologies Private Limited, involved a challenge to an order from the Commercial Court dated May 31, 2024. This order had permitted the respondent-plaintiff, Tenova Technologies, to file an additional written statement in response to a counter-claim by Zillion Infraprojects. The litigation had a complex history, including parallel proceedings under the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT).
The High Court had previously allowed the defendant’s counter-claim to proceed while the plaintiff’s original plaint was not permitted, in light of the NCLT proceedings. The plaintiff then sought to introduce a new plea via an additional written statement to its counter-claim, which was at the argument stage. The High Court, while acknowledging the long duration of the case, found the lower court’s decision to permit a written statement at such a late stage to be problematic. The court disposed of the petition by quashing the challenged order. However, it granted the plaintiff the liberty to raise all the contentions from its proposed additional written statement orally during the arguments before the Commercial Court. The High Court directed the Commercial Court to consider these arguments in accordance with the law and to conclude the proceedings within an expedited three-month timeframe. This ruling streamlines the process by avoiding further procedural delays while ensuring both parties have a fair opportunity to present their case.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
The petitioner – defendant in Commercial O.S.No.27279 of 2009 is at the doors of this Court calling in question an order passed on 31-05-2024 on IA No. 1 of 2024, whereby the application filed by the respondent-plaintiff is allowed, permitting filing of additional written statement by the plaintiff.
2. Heard Sri C K Nandakumar, learned senior counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri C P Ayyappa, learned counsel appearing for respondent.
3. The lis between the two has a checkered history, begins in the year 2009 and lands up in a CIRP process after the parties are before the National Company Law Tribunal (‘NCLT’ for short). Before the concerned Court, the defendant filed its counter claim. The matter reaches this Court and the counter claim was permitted to be continued and not the plaint in terms of the proceedings pending before the NCLT. The issue is not on the merit of the matter.
4. Now, in the light of the fact that the plaintiff’s suit was not permitted and the defendant’s counter claim was permitted to be tried, the plaintiff files an application seeking a new plea to be incorporated in the plaint by way of additional written statement. The concerned Court allows the application and permits raising of a new plea by way of additional written statement, at the stage when the matter was set for arguments of the case. At that juncture, the defendant before the concerned Court, is before this Court, calling in question the said order, permitting filing of additional written statement in the counter claim. The submissions are made by both the counsels with regard to the merit of the matter.
5. In the light of the controversy being with regard to raising of a new plea or additional written statement in the counter claim that was permitted to be tried by this Court and that being objected to by the petitioner and the matter being at the stage of arguments, I deem it appropriate to dispose the petition, reserving liberty to the respondent-plaintiff to urge all the contentions that he is wanting to draw into as additional written statement before the concerned Court, as the matter before the concerned Court is at the stage of arguments. It is needless to observe that such arguments are advanced by the plaintiff before the concerned Court taking cue from the plaint that is filed or the additional written statement that is sought to be preferred before the concerned Court. The concerned court shall answer the same in accordance with law and take the suit to its logical conclusion.
6. Since the matter is of the year 2009, I deem it appropriate to further direct the concerned Court to conclude the proceedings within an outer limit of 3 months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.
7. As a matter of form, the Writ Petition is allowed. The order dated 31-05-2024 of the concerned Court impugned herein, stands quashed with the aforesaid observations.
