Legal Review and Analysis of MS Anvita Auto Tech Works Pvt Ltd vs MS Aroush Motors & Anr 2025 INSC 1202
1. Heading of the Judgment
M/S Anvita Auto Tech Works Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/S Aroush Motors & Anr. (Civil Appeal No. ______ of 2025, arising out of SLP (C) No. 21917 of 2025) - 2025 INSC 1202
2. Related Laws and Legal Provisions
This judgment interprets and applies the following key legal provisions:
Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC): Specifically, the proviso that mandates the filing of a Written Statement within a maximum of 120 days from the date of service of summons in commercial disputes and stipulates that the right to file is forfeited thereafter.
The Commercial Courts Act, 2015: This Act incorporates strict and mandatory timelines for procedural aspects in commercial suits.
In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation (2022) 3 SCC 117: The Supreme Court's Suo Motu order passed under Article 142 of the Constitution, which excluded the period from 15th March 2020 to 28th February 2022 for the computation of limitation periods under all general and special laws.
3. Basic Judgment Details
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Hon’ble Justice Aravind Kumar and Hon’ble Justice N.V. Anjaria
Date of Judgment: October 08, 2025
Nature of Case: Civil Appeal arising from a commercial dispute for recovery of money.
Appellate History: The Appellant (Defendant No. 1) challenged the Karnataka High Court's order which had upheld the Commercial Court's decree. The Commercial Court had decreed the suit after rejecting the Appellant's Written Statement for being filed late and denying the Appellant the right to cross-examine the Plaintiff's witness.
4. Core Principle and Analysis of the Judgment
4.1. The Overarching Philosophy: Substance Over Procedure
The Supreme Court commenced its analysis by invoking the principle that "Procedural law is not to be a tyrant but a servant, not an obstruction but an aid to justice." The Court firmly reiterated that the primary object of procedural rules is to advance the cause of justice. When a rigid adherence to technicalities causes injustice, courts must adopt a liberal approach to ensure that substantial justice is not sacrificed. This philosophy formed the bedrock for deciding the specific legal issues in this case.
4.2. The Core Legal Issue
The central question for the Supreme Court's determination was:
"Whether the High Court was correct in observing that on account of non-filing of a written statement by the defendant, his right to cross-examine the plaintiff's witness is taken away?"
4.3. The Two-Pronged Legal Analysis
A. The Interplay of Mandatory Timelines and the COVID-19 Limitation Extension
The Supreme Court acknowledged the mandatory nature of the 120-day timeline for filing a Written Statement in a commercial suit, as established in SCG Contracts (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. K.S. Chamankar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (2019) 12 SCC 210.
However, the Court applied the exception carved out by its own orders in In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation. The Appellant was served summons on 17th July 2021, and the 120-day period ended on 14th November 2021. The Court held that both these dates fell within the excluded period (15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022). Therefore, the lower courts erred in mechanically applying the 120-day limit without considering the blanket extension granted due to the pandemic. The Appellant's filing of the Written Statement on 07th January 2022 was thus within the legally permissible time. The Court supported this view by relying on its precedents in Babasaheb Raosaheb Kobarne v. Pyrotek India Pvt. Ltd. (2022 SCC OnLine SC 1315) and Aditya Khatian v. IL & FS Financial Services Ltd. (2023 INSC 867).
B. The Inalienable Right to Cross-Examination, Irrespective of Written Statement
This is the most significant legal principle reaffirmed in this judgment. The Supreme Court strongly condemned the Trial Court's action of marking the defendant's cross-examination as "Nil" solely because the Written Statement was not on record.
The Court held that the right to cross-examine the plaintiff's witnesses is a fundamental and inherent part of the principles of natural justice and a cardinal component of the right to a fair defence. This right exists independently of the filing of a Written Statement. Even in an ex-parte proceeding, a defendant retains the right to cross-examine the plaintiff's witnesses to test the truthfulness and credibility of their evidence. Denying this right was termed "absolutely perverse" and acted as the "final nail in the coffin to defendant’s right of defence." The Court cited its ruling in Ranjit Singh v. State of Uttarakhand (2024 INSC 724) to solidify this legal position.
5. Final Outcome and Supreme Court Directions
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal. The impugned judgment of the High Court and the decree of the Commercial Court were set aside. The matter was remanded back to the Trial Court with the following specific directions:
The Appellant (Defendant No. 1) is permitted to file its Written Statement on record.
The Appellant shall be allowed to exercise its right to cross-examine the Plaintiff's witnesses.
The Appellant shall pay costs of ₹1,00,000/- (One Lakh) to the Plaintiff for the delays incurred.
The Trial Court is directed to dispose of the commercial suit expeditiously, and preferably within a period of six months from the date of the Supreme Court's order.
6. Multiple Choice Questions Based on the Judgment
Question 1: In the case of M/S Anvita Auto Tech Works Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/S Aroush Motors & Anr., what was the Supreme Court's primary reasoning for allowing the delayed filing of the Written Statement?
A) The Court found the 120-day rule under the Commercial Courts Act to be directory and not mandatory.
B) The Court determined that the Plaintiff had not suffered any prejudice due to the delay.
C) The Court applied the limitation extension ordered due to the COVID-19 pandemic, which covered the period in question.
D) The Court held that the Defendant's reasons for delay were exceptionally convincing.
C) The Court applied the limitation extension ordered due to the COVID-19 pandemic, which covered the period in question.
Question 2: According to the Supreme Court's judgment in this case, which of the following statements accurately describes a defendant's right to cross-examination?
A) It is an absolute right that cannot be forfeited under any circumstances.
B) It is contingent upon the prior filing of a Written Statement within the statutory timeframe.
C) It is a fundamental right of defence that survives even if the Written Statement is not filed.
D) It can be taken away by the court as a penalty for employing dilatory tactics.
C) It is a fundamental right of defence that survives even if the Written Statement is not filed.
Blog Posts
