Commercial Courts Act's 120-Day Written Statement Limit Inapplicable To Admiralty Suits: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court has condoned a 135-day delay in filing a written statement in an Admiralty Suit.

The Court held that the mandatory 120-day deadline prescribed for commercial disputes does not govern proceedings under the Admiralty Act, 2017. The Court reached this conclusion even though disputes relating to admiralty and maritime law are categorised as commercial disputes under the Commercial Courts Act.

Justice M.A. Abdul Hakhim held that Admiralty Suits are governed by the original provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure relating to the filing of written statements.

The Court held,“Hence, it is the original Proviso to Rule 1 of Order VIII CPC which is applicable to the Written Statement in an Admiralty Suit filed under the Admiralty Act, 2017. Since the outer limit of 90 days specified in the original Proviso to Rule 1 of Order VIII CPC is only directory, the delay in filing the Written Statement can be condoned if this Court is satisfied with the explanations which are shown in the Application.”

The ruling came on an application filed by India Steamship Company and Chambal Fertilisers and Chemicals Ltd. seeking condonation of delay in filing their written statement. The application arose in an Admiralty Suit instituted by C.V. Gangadharan and M.P. Shobhana, who are seeking compensation in connection with the alleged disappearance of their son from one of the companies' vessels on March 8, 2009.

India Steamship Company and Chambal Fertilisers had originally secured an order condoning the delay in September 2024. Gangadharan and Shobhana subsequently sought review of that order. They contended that the claim was of a commercial nature and that a written statement filed beyond 120 days from service of summons could not be taken on record under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

The High Court later recalled its earlier order and reconsidered the application.

The shipping companies attributed the delay to the age of the dispute and difficulties in retrieving old records. They submitted that the shipping business had been closed in 2017-18 and that employees connected with the shipping division had left the organisation. According to the companies, time was also required to retrieve old files and appoint a new lawyer after their earlier counsel was elevated as a judge of the High Court.

Gangadharan and Shobhana opposed the plea. They argued that the suit involved a commercial dispute and that the written statement had been filed 166 days after service of summons. According to them, the 120-day period prescribed for commercial disputes was mandatory, and the delay could not be condoned.

The shipping companies, on the other hand, maintained that the suit had been instituted under the Admiralty Act, 2017 and not under the Commercial Courts Act. They argued that Section 12 of the Admiralty Act made the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure applicable to Admiralty proceedings. They further contended that the original proviso to Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC governed the filing of written statements.

After examining the rival contentions, the Court observed that admiralty jurisdiction is exercised exclusively by specified High Courts under the Admiralty Act.

The Court observed that although disputes relating to admiralty and maritime law are included within the definition of commercial disputes under the Commercial Courts Act, that enactment does not confer admiralty jurisdiction on commercial courts.

The Court further observed that admiralty jurisdiction continued to be exercised by High Courts even after the enactment of the Commercial Courts Act. It noted that the Admiralty Act, 2017 provides a separate statutory framework governing maritime claims.

Referring to Section 12 of the Admiralty Act and Rule 28 of the Kerala High Court Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Rules, 2019, the Court observed that the provisions of the CPC apply to Admiralty proceedings insofar as they are not inconsistent with the Act or the Rules.

Rejecting the contention advanced by Gangadharan and Shobhana, the Court held that the original proviso to Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC applies to Admiralty Suits. It therefore concluded that the delay in filing a written statement could be condoned if sufficient cause was shown.

The Court also noted that while India Steamship Company and Chambal Fertilisers had sought condonation of a delay of 76 days, the actual delay worked out to 135 days from the date of service of summons.

While accepting the explanation offered by the companies, the Court held, “Considering these circumstances, I am of the view that the delay in filing the Written Statement by the Applicants/Defendants is well explained to the satisfaction of this Court and hence the Written Statement can be ordered to be accepted.”

The court noted that the suit concerns a claim for compensation arising from the alleged disappearance of Gangadharan and Shobhana's son from the companies' vessel in 2009. The court also took note of the closure of the shipping business, the departure of employees connected with the matter, and the time required to retrieve old records relating to the dispute.

Holding that the delay had been satisfactorily explained, the court allowed the application, condoned the delay, and directed that the written statement filed by the companies be taken on record.

For Applicants: Advocates Sneha Rajiv, P.F Rosy, Vinayak Mohandas and Mahesh Bhanu S

For Respondents: Advocates R. Parthasarathy, Seema and B Krishnan