ANSWER

The OBJECTIVE of commercial courts act 2015 was for the speedy resolution of commercial
disputes. The act has clarified about the overriding effect it will have in case of the provisions of
the CPC and it draws this overriding power from section 16 of the said act. In case of Kailas vs.
Nanhku the Supreme Court held that the motive of amending the order viii rule 1 was to curb the
mischief associated with it. The defendants when asked to submit written statement use the
provisions of the said order and delay in disposing the case thus violating the spirit of speedy
justice and barring petitioners from getting it. As well as the procedure of adjournment results in
much more inconvenience.

In this question Justice Kathwala reached the conclusion in one similar case that in commercial
suits a written statement by defendant cannot be taken on record after the expiry of 120 days
from the date of service of writ of summons. In so far as commercial courts act is concerned
there can be no manner of doubt, the permanent intent of the Legislature was to reduce delay in
commercial courts and to improve our country’s rating in ease of doing business.

Even a literal way of reading of the amended provisions of order viii rule 1 suggest that not only
penal consequences provided upon the defendant failing to file written statement but the
discretion of the commercial court to take on a record of written statement thereafter has been
taken away. Admittedly the mischief prior to the commercial court act was belated filings of
written statements on the frivolous ground. So after specifying the mandatory nature of the
amendments and considering the several judgements and judgement of scg contracts and by
applying the mischief rule stated the provisions to order viii rule 1 introduced by commercial
courts act is mandatory in this aspect. In this view of the apex court in case of scg contracts ltd
ks chamankar infrastructure ltd it clears that the amendment introduced by commercial court act
to code Viii rule 1 and 10 are mandatory in nature.

So applying these cases judgements and mischief rule of interpretation and seeing this intention
of legislature the provisions are mandatory in nature.