AK Ghosh & Company and Others v. Biman Bose and Others, 2026

The plaintiffs instituted a commercial suit before the Calcutta High Court seeking recovery of alleged unpaid dues for the supply of printing paper.

The defendants filed their written statement along with a counterclaim in July 2023.

The plaintiffs did not file a written statement to the counterclaim within the prescribed period.

After a delay of 238 days, the plaintiffs sought leave from the Court to file their written statement to the counterclaim.

The learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court rejected the application on the ground that the statutory period had expired.

The plaintiffs challenged the order before the Commercial Appellate Division of the High Court.

The Division Bench also dismissed the appeal.

Aggrieved, the plaintiffs approached the Supreme Court.

The principal issue before the Supreme Court was whether the mandatory 120-day time limit under the Commercial Courts Act also governs a plaintiff's written statement to a defendant's counterclaim.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the orders of the Calcutta High Court.

The Court held that a plaintiff in a commercial suit must ordinarily file a written statement to a counterclaim within 30 days from service of the counterclaim or summons.

The Court clarified that although the period may be extended for sufficient cause, such extension cannot exceed 120 days.

Upon expiry of 120 days, the plaintiff's right to file the written statement stands forfeited.

The Bench rejected the contention that the limitation period begins only after the Court specifically fixes a timeline under Order VIII Rule 6A(3) CPC.

It held that Order VIII Rule 6G CPC expressly makes all provisions applicable to a defendant's written statement equally applicable to a plaintiff's reply to a counterclaim.

The Court observed that accepting the contrary interpretation would enable indefinite delays whenever courts omitted to prescribe a specific timeline, thereby defeating the purpose of the Commercial Courts Act.

The Bench disagreed with contrary views taken by the Bombay and Madras High Courts.

The Court emphasized that the Commercial Courts Act was enacted to ensure speedy disposal of commercial disputes and promote an efficient business environment.

On the question of maintainability, the Court held that no appeal lies against an order refusing permission to file a belated written statement to a counterclaim, since such an order is not enumerated under Order XLIII CPC or Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

Consequently, the Supreme Court upheld the rejection of the plaintiffs' application and vacated the interim stay granted earlier.

The judgment reinforces the legislative objective of the Commercial Courts Act to ensure expeditious adjudication of commercial disputes by imposing strict procedural timelines on all parties.

The Court adopted a purposive interpretation of Order VIII Rule 6G CPC, ensuring procedural parity between defendants filing written statements and plaintiffs responding to counterclaims.

By rejecting the view that limitation begins only after judicial fixation of time under Order VIII Rule 6A(3), the Court prevented procedural loopholes that could encourage unnecessary delays.

The ruling clarifies conflicting High Court decisions and settles the legal position that the strict timeline applies equally to counterclaim pleadings.

The judgment also reiterates that appellate remedies under the Commercial Courts Act remain narrowly confined to orders expressly made appealable, thereby preventing interlocutory delays in commercial litigation.

Overall, the decision strengthens procedural discipline in commercial litigation and furthers the objective of creating a speedy, predictable, and investor-friendly dispute resolution framework.