2026 INSC 684
A.K. Ghosh & Company & Ors. v. Biman Bose & Ors.
HEAD NOTES
A. Commercial Courts Act, 2015 — Order VIII Rules 1, 6A, 6G & 10 CPC — Written statement to counter-claim — Limitation.
(Paras 27–33)
Held, in a commercial suit, the mandatory timeline prescribed by the proviso to Order VIII Rule 1 CPC applies equally to a written statement filed by the plaintiff in answer to the defendant's counter-claim. Such written statement must ordinarily be filed within 30 days and, for sufficient cause, may be extended up to a maximum of 120 days, beyond which the right to file stands forfeited.
B. Order VIII Rule 6G CPC — Interpretation.
(Paras 27–33)
Held, Rule 6G expressly extends all rules governing a defendant's written statement to a plaintiff's written statement in answer to a counter-claim. The provision applies not merely to the contents of the written statement but also to the statutory time limits governing its filing.
C. Order VIII Rule 6A(3) CPC — Court's power to fix time — Effect.
(Paras 29–32)
Held, though Rule 6A(3) empowers the Court to fix the time for filing a written statement to a counter-claim, failure of the Court to prescribe such time does not leave the plaintiff free to file the written statement at any time. In such a situation, Rule 6G read with the proviso to Rule 1 governs the outer limitation.
D. Commercial Courts Act, 2015 — Object — Expeditious disposal.
(Paras 26–33)
Held, the amendments introduced by the Commercial Courts Act are intended to ensure strict adherence to procedural timelines for speedy adjudication of commercial disputes. Any interpretation diluting the mandatory timeline would defeat the legislative object of expeditious disposal.
E. Order VIII Rule 10 CPC — Consequence of default.
(Paras 20, 32–33)
Held, failure to file a written statement within the prescribed period attracts the consequences contemplated under Rule 10 CPC, including forfeiture of the right to file the written statement in commercial suits after expiry of 120 days.
F. Commercial Courts Act — Appeal — Section 13 — Maintainability.
(Paras 34–37)
Held, an appeal under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act is maintainable only against orders specifically enumerated under Order XLIII CPC or Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. An order refusing permission to file a belated written statement under Order VIII CPC is not appealable.
G. Appeal — Statutory right.
(Paras 35–37)
Held, the right of appeal is purely statutory. Where the Commercial Courts Act constitutes a self-contained code restricting appellate remedies, no appeal lies except in the manner expressly provided by the statute.
Analysis of Facts
The plaintiffs instituted a commercial suit for recovery of money against the defendants.
The contesting defendants filed their written statement together with a counter-claim, copies whereof were served upon the plaintiffs. Despite receipt of the counter-claim, the plaintiffs did not file their written statement within the statutory period and sought leave to do so after a delay of 238 days.
The Commercial Division of the Calcutta High Court rejected the application, holding that the mandatory time limit under the proviso to Order VIII Rule 1 CPC applied equally to a written statement filed in answer to a counter-claim.
The Commercial Appellate Division dismissed the appeal both on the ground of maintainability and on merits.
Before the Supreme Court, the plaintiffs contended that Order VIII Rule 6A(3) CPC left the matter entirely to the discretion of the Court and, since no time had been fixed by the Court, the statutory period of 120 days could not apply.
Rejecting the contention, the Supreme Court held that Rule 6G expressly incorporates all rules governing written statements, including the mandatory timeline prescribed under Rule 1. The Court further held that failure of the Court to specify the period under Rule 6A(3) does not suspend the statutory outer limit of 120 days.
The Court also affirmed that an order refusing permission to file a delayed written statement under Order VIII CPC is not appealable under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act.
Analysis of Law
The Supreme Court laid down the following principles:
A counter-claim is treated as a cross-suit and the plaintiff's reply thereto is a written statement.
Order VIII Rule 6G applies the entire scheme governing written statements, including limitation, to replies filed against counter-claims.
In commercial suits, the plaintiff must ordinarily file the written statement to the counter-claim within 30 days.
For sufficient cause, the Court may extend the period, but not beyond 120 days from service of summons or receipt of the counter-claim.
Failure of the Court to prescribe a timeline under Rule 6A(3) does not eliminate the statutory limitation prescribed by Rule 1 read with Rule 6G.
The Commercial Courts Act mandates strict procedural discipline to ensure speedy disposal of commercial litigation.
Orders refusing leave to file a delayed written statement are not appealable under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, as they are not covered by Order XLIII CPC or Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
Ratio Decidendi
In a commercial suit governed by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, the mandatory timeline prescribed under the proviso to Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure applies equally to the filing of a written statement by the plaintiff in answer to a defendant's counter-claim by virtue of Order VIII Rule 6G CPC. Such written statement must ordinarily be filed within 30 days and, for sufficient cause, may be accepted only up to a maximum of 120 days, beyond which the right to file stands forfeited. Further, an order refusing leave to file such delayed written statement is not appealable under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act as it is not an order enumerated under Order XLIII CPC or Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
