Case: Iridium India Telecom Ltd Vs. Motorola Inc

3. The appellant company filed Suit No. 3092 of 2002 on 16.9.2002 on the Original Side of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay claiming about Rs. 1000 crores on the ground that it had suffered loss and / or damages on account of an alleged fraud on the part of the respondent, a foreign corporation incorporated in the United States of America. The appellant also obtained an ex parte order against the respondent in the nature of an attachment before judgment of receivables in India. On 17.9.2002, the first respondent claims to have dispatched the plaint and all connected papers by courier along with a covering letter of the same date. According to the appellant, the Sheriff of Bombay was requested to transmit the writ of summons along with the plaint and the other proceedings by Regd. A.D. post or by air mail to the respondent, and the Sheriff had done it. On 1.10.2002 the respondent filed a detailed affidavit along with an application to vacate the ex parte an interim order made on 16.9.2002, as a result of which the ex parte order was modified by the High Court on 3.10.2002. On 16.10.2002 a second Notice of Motion was filed by the appellant. The respondent filed an affidavit opposing the prayers made in the second Notice of Motion. After hearing the parties, the High Court by an order made on 24.10.2002 refused the ad interim reliefs sought in the second Notice of Motion. Though the appellant preferred an appeal from both the Orders dated 3.10.2002, modifying the earlier ex parte order, and the refusal of ad interim reliefs on 24.10.2002, that appeal was finally withdrawn. On 2.3.2003, the the appellant applied for issue of duplicate summons. On 13.3.2003 the respondent filed a comprehensive affidavit in reply to the Notice of Motion. On 9.4.2003, duplicate summons were served upon the respondent. On 2.5.2003 the respondent applied for extension of time purportedly under Order VIII, Rule 1 of CPC, by a letter addressed to the Prothonotary and Senior Master, High Court of Bombay. The matter came before the learned Single Judge, who after hearing both the sides was of the view that "granting of 90 days time from 9.4.2003, the date on which the duplicate writ of summons had been admittedly served upon the respondent, would provide ample opportunity to the respondent to file written statement or or before 8.7.2003". Although, a prayer was made that the court may exercise its powers under Section 148 of the CPC and grant further extension of 30 days beyond 8.7.2003, that request was declined on the ground that the request was premature and would be considered only on 8.7.2003, provided the defendant-respondent was able to show sufficient cause for such an indulgence." Further time to file written statement was granted on payment of costs quantified at Rs. 10,000 to be paid to the plaintiff-appellant. According to the respondent, the written statement was ready by 6.7.2003, but had not yet been affirmed. The respondent moved the court for further extension of time. This request was also opposed by the appellant. By an order made on 7.7.2003, the High Court extended time up to 28.7.20034. The appellant filed appeal No. 608 of 2003 before the Division Bench of the High Court challenging the order extending time to file the written statement. On 28.7.2003, the written statement was actually filed by the respondent. The appeal was dismissed by the Division Bench on 17.10.2003, taking the view that the suits on the Original Side would be governed by the Original Side Rules and not by the amended provisions of Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC.

Court's reasoning:
19. The Legislature recognized the special role assigned to the Chartered High Courts and exempted them from the application of several provisions of the Code in the exercise of their ordinary or extra-ordinary civil jurisdiction for the simple reason that those jurisdictions were governed by the procedure prescribed by the rules made in exercise of the powers of the Chartered High Courts under clause 37 of the Letters Patent. Interestingly, Section 652 of this Act itself empowered the High Courts to make rules consistent with this Code to regulate any matter connected with the procedure of the Courts of Civil Judicature subject to its superintendence", suggesting that consistency with the Code was a sine qua non only when making rules for the subordinate courtsThere are two difficulties in accepting this argument. In the first place, Section 2(18) of the CPC defines "rules" to mean "rules and forms contained in the First Schedule or made under section 122 or section 125". The conspicuous absence of reference to the rules regulating the procedure to be followed on the Original Side of a Chartered High Court makes it clear that those rules are not "rules as defined in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Secondly, it is not possible to accept the contention that the Letters Patent and rules made thereunder, which are recognized and specifically protected by section 129, are relegated to a subordinate status, as contended by the learned counsel48. Far from doing away with the Letters Patent, the amending Act of 2002 has left unscathed the provisions of section 129 and what follows therefrom. The contention must, therefore, fail.