22 April 2024 Business Laws >> Business & Commercial Law  

An insurance company's attempt to revive its defense in a commercial lawsuit was denied by the court today. The company argued they were not properly served with the lawsuit and that the case was simply a continuation of one filed elsewhere.

The insurance company, named as the Defendant in this suit, failed to file a written statement within the mandated 120 days after being served with the writ of summons. As a consequence, the court previously ruled the case could proceed as if the Defendant had no defense.

The Defendant argued that they were not served at their regional office, which handles legal matters. The court dismissed this argument, stating that service at the address listed in the insurance policy and the lawsuit itself was sufficient.

In a further attempt to defend their position, the Defendant claimed the current suit was merely a continuation of one filed earlier in the Delhi High Court. They argued that since they had already filed a written statement in Delhi, the 120-day limit for filing one in this court shouldn't apply.

The court, however, disagreed. They pointed out that the Delhi High Court had returned the original lawsuit under a specific rule, essentially requiring the Plaintiff to re-file in the appropriate court. This, according to the court, meant the proceedings were starting fresh and a new written statement was necessary.

With both arguments rejected, the Defendant's application to revive their defense was denied. The company will still have the opportunity to cross-examine the Plaintiff's witnesses during the trial.