Authority: Supreme Court of India, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction

Order Date: 13 July 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Appellants – A.K. Ghosh & Company and others; Respondents – Biman Bose and others.
  • Background: Plaintiffs supplied printing paper to defendants; legal notice dated 16‑06‑2021 claimed ₹74,65,527 with interest. Defendants denied claim on 28‑06‑2021. Plaintiffs filed recovery suit CS No. 274 of 2022, later renumbered CS (COM) No. 440 of 2024 in Calcutta High Court.
  • Defendants (Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6) filed written statements and a counter‑claim; copies served on plaintiffs’ AOR on 18‑07‑2023.
  • Plaintiffs applied on 15‑03‑2024 (238 days after service) for leave to file a written statement to the counter‑claim; the learned Judge dismissed the application on 19‑08‑2024, holding that Order VIII Rule 1 CPC’s 120‑day limit applied.
  • Appeal to Division Bench (AO‑COM/35/2024) was dismissed on 26‑02‑2025 on maintainability and merits.
  • Supreme Court stayed further proceedings on 23‑05‑2025.
  • Legal Question: Whether the mandatory 120‑day time frame prescribed by the proviso to Order VIII Rule 1 CPC applies to a plaintiff’s written statement to a defendant’s counter‑claim in a suit governed by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
  • Arguments: Plaintiffs’ senior counsel argued the 120‑day limit should not apply mutatis mutandis to plaintiffs and that the time should be fixed under Order VIII Rule 6A(3) CPC. Defendants’ counsel contended that Order VIII Rule 6G CPC extends the defendant’s time‑frame to plaintiffs’ statements to counter‑claims.
  • Court’s Analysis: The Court examined the scheme of Order VIII CPC, the proviso to Rule 1 as amended by the CC Act, and the effect of Rule 6G. It noted that the purpose of the CC Act is speedy disposal of high‑value commercial disputes and that extending the same temporal discipline to plaintiffs’ statements to counter‑claims is consistent with that objective. The Court rejected the view that Rule 6G only concerns content, affirming it applies the time‑limit provisions as well.
  • The Court also addressed maintainability of the appeal under Section 13 of the CC Act, concluding that the appeal was not maintainable because the order appealed against was not enumerated under Order XLIII CPC or Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

Final Outcome

  • The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals of A.K. Ghosh & Co.; the interim order dated 23‑05‑2025 was vacated.
  • All pending applications, if any, were dismissed.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.

Topics: Commercial Courts Act; Civil Procedure Time Limits