Breaking SUPREME COURT CRACKS DOWN ON HOME LOAN SUBVENTION FRAUD: CBI PROBE EXPEDITED, 30-DAY SANCTION DEADLINE FOR BANK OFFICIALS
New Delhi · Monday, 10 August 2026 9888666310 | [email protected]
Free Law — free judgments and free headnotes Free Lawby De Jure
Supreme Court of India 2018-05-07 allowed

Atcom Technologies Limited vs Y.A. Chunawala and Co. & Ors

Bench: 2 — A.K. Sikri

In Brief

Atcom Technologies sued for recovery of dues of Rs. 11.9 crores allegedly owed by respondents for failure to deliver flats in 'Emerald Court', Mumbai, or refund money paid under an arrangement. The respondents filed a Notice of Motion seeking condonation of over 5 years' delay in filing their written statement (or over 13 years if counted from the suit filing date), arguing the writ of summons was not served until 2009. The High Court condoned the delay by 'balancing equities,' reasoning that the plaintiff also took 9 years to serve summons. The Supreme Court held the High Court's reasoning erroneous: Order VIII Rule 1, CPC mandates written statements within 30 days (extendable to 90 days), and delay beyond that requires exceptionally hard circumstances and satisfactory explanation. Mere plaintiff delay cannot justify condonation of such inordinate defendant delay. Appeal allowed."

The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.

Civil Procedure Condonation of Delay Procedural Law Pleadings

Read the full judgment & headnote. It's free.

Register to read the complete Supreme Court judgment text and the headnote, and to search 1 lakh+ Supreme Court judgments by meaning. It is a free service.

Register Free Login