Civil Procedure Law

SCG Contracts India Pvt. Ltd. v. K.S. Chamankar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.

(2019) 12 SCC 210

Facts

SCG Contracts instituted a commercial suit in the Delhi High Court for recovery of money.
Summons were served on the defendants.
The defendants failed to file their written statement within the initial thirty-day period and did not place it on record within 120 days from service.
They later attempted to file the defence and sought condonation.
The Commercial Courts Act had amended Order V Rule 1 and Order VIII Rule 1 for commercial disputes.
Those amendments expressly provided that:
Extension could be granted only up to 120 days;
On expiry, the defendant forfeited the right to file; and
The court could not thereafter take the statement on record.
The High Court nonetheless permitted or contemplated acceptance of the delayed written statement, partly relying on inherent powers and ordinary CPC precedents.
SCG Contracts appealed to the Supreme Court.

For commercial disputes, the amended CPC provisions create a complete and mandatory scheme:
Written statement within thirty days;
Extension for recorded reasons and costs;
Absolute maximum of 120 days from service;
Forfeiture after 120 days;
Prohibition on the court taking it on record thereafter.
The use of:
“Shall forfeit”; and
“Shall not allow” demonstrates mandatory legislative intent.
Section 151 preserves inherent powers only where the Code is silent.
It cannot be used:
Contrary to an express provision;
To extend a prohibited deadline; or
To defeat a statutory consequence.
Kailash concerned the ordinary CPC language before this special commercial formulation and is therefore distinguishable.
Commercial procedure intentionally imposes stricter discipline to ensure speedy adjudication.

The defendants had not filed their written statement within 120 days of service.
Once that period expired, the statutory consequence occurred automatically:
The right was forfeited.
The court no longer possessed discretion to:
Condone the delay;
Accept the pleading on costs;
Treat the time as directory; or
Invoke inherent powers.
The defendants’ explanations could have been considered within the 120-day window, but not after it closed.
The High Court’s reliance on the ordinary civil-suit approach ignored the specific amendments made for commercial cases.
The legislature deliberately changed the language after experience with delays under the general CPC.
Accepting a late defence would nullify both:
The express forfeiture; and
The commercial-court objective.
The Supreme Court also stressed that pending applications or procedural requests do not suspend the statutory period unless the law so provides.
Defendants must act diligently after service and cannot assume that interlocutory proceedings preserve the right indefinitely.

The Supreme Court held that the written statement filed beyond 120 days could not be taken on record.
The right had been forfeited, and Section 151 could not override the express prohibition.
The delayed written statement was excluded.
Use this case for: In commercial suits, 120 days is an absolute outer limit and no court has power to extend it.