A.K. Ghosh & Company and Others v. Biman Bose and Others, 2026

A.K. Ghosh & Company instituted a commercial suit before the Calcutta High Court concerning alleged unpaid dues relating to the supply of printing paper.

The defendants filed their written statement along with a counterclaim on 18 July 2023.

The plaintiffs did not file their written statement in response to the counterclaim within the prescribed period.

They eventually sought permission to file the written statement on 15 March 2024, after a delay of approximately 238 days.

The Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court refused permission, holding that the statutory 120-day outer limit had expired.

The Division Bench also dismissed the appeal as not maintainable.

The plaintiffs approached the Supreme Court challenging both the refusal to accept their written statement and the finding regarding maintainability.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals.

It held that the mandatory time limit applicable to a defendant's written statement also applies to a plaintiff's written statement in answer to a counterclaim in a commercial suit.

The plaintiff ordinarily gets 30 days from service of summons or receipt of the counterclaim.

The court may extend the period for sufficient cause, with reasons recorded in writing and appropriate costs, but the extension cannot exceed 120 days.

After expiry of 120 days, the plaintiff's right to file the written statement to the counterclaim is forfeited.

The Court rejected the argument that the absence of a specific direction under Order VIII Rule 6A(3) permits unlimited delay.

Relying on Order VIII Rule 6G CPC, the Court held that the rules governing a defendant's written statement apply to the plaintiff's response to a counterclaim.

The Court also upheld the finding that the appeal before the Commercial Appellate Division was not maintainable, as an order under Order VIII CPC is not one of the orders specifically made appealable under Order XLIII CPC or Section 37 of the Arbitration Act.

The decision closes an important procedural loophole in commercial litigation. A plaintiff cannot argue that the 120-day deadline applies only to the defendant's original written statement and not to a reply to a counterclaim.

The Supreme Court relied heavily on the structure of Order VIII Rule 6G, which expressly extends the rules applicable to a defendant's written statement to the written statement filed in answer to a counterclaim.

The Court's interpretation is consistent with the legislative purpose of the Commercial Courts Act—commercial disputes are intended to proceed through a faster and more disciplined procedural framework.

The Court rejected the reasoning that a plaintiff could wait indefinitely where the trial court had not specifically fixed a deadline under Rule 6A(3). Such an interpretation would effectively allow procedural delay to defeat the statutory scheme.

The judgment also establishes that the 120-day period is an outer limit, not merely a directory guideline. Once that period expires, the right to file the written statement is lost.

The ruling is equally significant on appellate jurisdiction. Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act does not create a general right of appeal against every procedural order passed in a commercial suit.

An appeal is available only where the impugned order falls within the specifically prescribed categories under Order XLIII CPC or Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

The Court therefore reinforced two complementary principles: strict procedural timelines for commercial litigation and restricted appellate intervention.

The judgment ultimately promotes certainty, prevents strategic delay and supports the broader objective of creating a speedy and commercially efficient dispute-resolution system.