Madras High Court
APPEAL(CAD)/86/2026 of K 12, TECHNO SERVICES PVT LTD Vs JONES LANG LASALLE on 13 October 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 13-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GK.MUTHUKUMAAR
APPEAL(CAD) No. 86 of 2026
CNR:{HCMA012476052025}
AND
CMP NO. 27151 OF 2026
M/s.K-12, Techno Services Pvt Ltd
Represented by its authorised signatory Mr. Nikhil Soman, No.68/1, 1st and 2nd Floor, 1st Main Road, Industrial Suburb, 2nd Stage, Yeshwanthur Ward 42
Laxmidevi Nagar,
Bengalur-560 022
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
M/s.Jones Lang Lasalle
Property Consultants (India) Private Limited, Represented authorized signatory Rohit.R, Level 14, No.5, Prestige Khoday, Raj Bhavan Road, Bengaluru 560001.
Also at
Level 8 Tower 2,
TVH Beliciaa Towers,
MRC Nagar,
Chennai-600 028
..Respondent(s)
Appeal (Commercial Appellate Division) filed under Section 13(1)(A) of Commercial Courts Act, to allow the First Appeal and set aside the decree and Judgment passed in COS.No.340/2024 on the file of the Learned Principal Commercial Court at Egmore, Chennai dated 02-07-2025.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr.Leelesh Sundaram
for M/s. Nathan And Associates
For Respondent(s):
Mr.P.Neelakandan
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
1
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by N.Sathish Kumar J.) Challenging the judgment and decree of the Principal Commercial Court at Egmore, Chennai, dated 02.07.2025, in C.O.S.No.340 of 2024, the present Appeal has been filed.
2. Following are the brief facts of the case : The respondent/plaintiff is engaged in the business of providing consultancy services to several clients. The appellant/defendant is carrying on business as an education service provider. The defendant availed the plaintiff’s services for conducting feasibility, locational assessment and bench marking study to start a School at Kolathur, Chennai. Accordingly, a work order dated 19.12.2022 was issued to the plaintiff and a fee of Rs.22,90,000/- was agreed with GST of Rs.4,48,200/-, in all for a total of Rs.29,38,000/-. In this regard, a service agreement was entered into between the parties on 20.12.2022. The plaintiff also submitted its final report on 23.12.2022 in accordance with the terms of the agreement. After confirmation about the satisfactory completion of work, the plaintiff raised invoice dated 21.12.2022 for the agreed amount. The agreed amount was payable on or before 20.01.2023 as per Clause 5 of the service agreement. Despite several oral and written reminders, the defendant did not come forward to settle the payment. Hence, a legal notice dated 18.12.2023 was sent to the defendant. The defendant sent a reply dated 27.12.2023 denying their liability. Thereafter, a rejoinder notice was issued on 17.01.2024. Hence, the suit.
3. The appellant/defendant has not filed its written statement before the Commercial Court within the mandatory period as prescribed under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Therefore, the right to file a written statement was forfeited.
4. On the side of the plaintiff, P.W.1 was examined and Exs.A1 to A31 were marked. Despite several opportunities given to the defendant to cross- examine the plaintiff side witnesses, the defendant did not cross-examine them.
5. Therefore, the Commercial Court, considering the entire oral and documentary evidence on record, particularly the service agreement between the parties (Ex.A3) and invoice raised (Ex.A4), which are not denied, decreed the suit by impugned judgment and decree dated 02.07.2025.
6. Challenging the judgment and decree of the Commercial Court, the present Appeal has been filed by the defendant.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant would urge only one ground before us. He would submit that though the right of filing the written statement is forfeited, he has not been given an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. Therefore, the learned counsel seeks one more opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses.
8. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the entire materials available on record.
9. The only point that arises for consideration in this Appeal is whether the defendant is entitled to one more opportunity at the appellate stage to cross- examine the witnesses ?
10. It is relevant to note that the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, came into force on 23.10.2015 and certain amendments were made in the Code of Civil Procedure. The very object of the Act is to facilitate the ease of doing business and to speed up the disposal of the commercial disputes. Therefore, a strict timeline has been introduced for every stage of the commercial suit in order to facilitate disposal of the commercial cases without any delay. One such amendment is with regard to the time limit in filing written statement in a commercial suit. In view of the same, the written statement in a commercial suit shall be filed within a period of 120 days and not later than that. In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in SCG Contracts India Pvt. Ltd. v. K.S.Chamankar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and others reported in 2019 (12) SCC 210, has held that, beyond 120 days from the date of service of summons, the defendants shall forfeit the right to file written statement and the Court shall not allow the written statement to be taken on record.
11. Though the party’s right to file written statement is forfeited, he/she will have the opportunity to participate in the trial by way of cross-examination. However, in the present case, the impugned judgment of the Commercial Court itself indicates that despite several opportunities given to the defendant, they did not come forward to participate in the trial proceedings.
12. Therefore, once an opportunity has already been given by the trial Court to cross-examine the witnesses and the same has not been availed, the defendant, as a matter of fact, at the appellate stage, cannot complain that no opportunity has been given. It is clear from the judgment that a fair opportunity has been given to the defendant within the time limit. If such opportunity has not been availed without any reason, we are of the view that, as a matter of right, such a contention cannot be put forth at the appellate stage.
13. On a perusal of the materials, it is relevant to note that Ex.A2 - work order dated 19.12.2022 and Ex.A3 - service agreement dated 20.12.2022 have not been disputed even in the reply notice. In the reply notice, the only contention of the defendant is that they sought to adjust some other payment in a different contract, which fact has not been established. Therefore, once the service agreement and work order done by the plaintiff are not disputed and the invoice raised by the plaintiff is also not disputed and several communications have been sent by the plaintiff later for payment of money and the said amount has not been paid, we are of the view that the Commercial Court is right in decreeing the suit. Hence, we do not find any merit in this Appeal.
14. Accordingly, this Appeal is dismissed, confirming the judgment and decree of the Commercial Court. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. (N.S.K.,J.) (G.K.M.,J.) 13-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No MKN To The Principal Judge, Principal Commercial Court at Egmore, Chennai.
N.SATHISH KUMAR J. AND GK.MUTHUKUMAAR J. MKN APPEAL(CAD) No. 86 of 2026 13-10-2026