NOVARTIS AG Vs. WANDER PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY THIS APPLICATION THE DEFENDANT IS SEEKING EXTENSION OF TIME TO PERFORM CERTAIN OBLIGATIONS IN RESPECT OF SETTLEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES DATED 20TH AUGUST, 2002 APPROVED BY THIS COURT. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE SETTLEMENT WAS ARRIVED AT BY VIRTUE OF A JOINT APPLICATION BY THE PARTIES UNDER ORDER XXIII RULE 3 CPC. THE PRINCIPAL SUBMISSION OF MR. CHANDHIOK, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT/DEFENDANT IS THAT HE IS SEEKING EXTENSION OF TIME ONLY BY 12 DAYS TO COMPLY WITH THE CONDITIONS IMPOSED BY THE SAID TERMS OF SETTLEMENT. THUS THE QUESTION OF LAW WHICH HAS BEEN RAISED AND ARISES FOR DETERMINATION IS THE POWER OF THIS COURT TO EXTEND THE TIME AND ALTER TERMS OF SETTLEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES NOTWITHSTANDING THE OPPOSITION BY ONE OF THE PARTIES TO THE SETTLEMENT. THE LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT MR. CHANDHIOK HAS RELIED UPON PROVISIONS OF SECTION 148 CPC TO CONTEND THAT WHERE ANY PERIOD IS FIXED OR GRANTED BY THE COURT FOR THE DOING OF ANY ACT PRESCRIBED OR ALLOWED BY THE CODE, THE COURT MAY, IN ITS DISCRETION, FROM TIME TO TIME, ENLARGE SUCH PERIOD, EVEN THOUGH THE ORIGINALLY FIXED PERIOD MAY HAVE EXPIRED. SECTION 148 CPC READS AS FOLLOWS:- "148. ENLARGEMENT OF TIME - WHERE ANY PERIOD IS FIXED OR GRANTED BY THE COURT FOR THE DOING OF ANY ACT PRESCRIBED OR ALLOWED BY THIS CODE, THE COURT MAY, IN ITS DISCRETION, FROM TIME TO TIME, ENLARGE SUCH PERIOD, [NOT EXCEEDING THIRTY DAYS IN TOTAL] EVEN THOUGH THE PERIOD ORIGINALLY FIXED OR GRANTED MAY HAVE EXPIRED."

(2.) HE STATES THAT THE PHRASE 'ANY PERIOD FIXED OR GRANTED BY THIS COURT' USED IN SECTION 148 NEED NOT BE FULLY GOVERNED BY THE DOING OF ANY ACT PRESCRIBED OR ALLOWED BY THIS CODE AND WOULD ALSO INCLUDE A SITUATION SUCH AS THE PRESENT CASE. HE HAS ALSO RELIED ON THE JUDGMENT OF SUPREME COURT IN SMT. PERIYAKKAL AND OTHERS VS. SMT. DAKSHYANI, AIR 1983 SC 428, THE RELEVANT PORTION OF WHICH READS AS FOLLOWS:-

(3.) HE HAS FURTHER RELIED UPON THE JUDGMENT OF CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN SMT. MANGALA GHOSH VS. RABINDRA NATH HAZRA, AIR 1987 CALCUTTA 307 AND IN PARTICULAR PARAGRAPH NO. 17 OF THE JUDGMENT WHICH READS AS UNDER: