A K Ghosh & Company & Orsv.Biman Bose & Ors

Supreme Court Holds 120-Day Deadline for Written Statement Applies to Counter-Claim Replies in Commercial Suits

Case Snapshot

Case Name: A.K. Ghosh & Company & Ors. v. Biman Bose & Ors.

Citation: 2026 INSC 684

Bench: Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran

Date of Judgment: July 13, 2026

Area of Law: Civil Procedure, Commercial Litigation, Counter-Claim

The Judgment in One Line

Plaintiff's reply to a defendant's counter-claim in a commercial suit is subject to the same 120-day mandatory deadline as a defendant's written statement.

Why This Judgment Matters

This landmark judgment resolves a significant procedural ambiguity in commercial litigation. The Supreme Court held that the stringent 120-day deadline under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC, as applicable to commercial suits under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, applies equally to a plaintiff's written statement in reply to a defendant's counter-claim. The Court rejected the view that Order VIII Rule 6A(3) alone governs such replies. This ensures that the Commercial Courts Act's objective of speedy disposal is not defeated by plaintiffs filing belated replies to counter-claims. The judgment also clarifies that appeals from procedural orders under Order VIII CPC are not maintainable under Section 13 of the CC Act.

Background

The plaintiffs filed a recovery suit against the defendants in the Calcutta High Court. The defendants filed their written statement and raised a counter-claim. Copies were served on the plaintiffs' advocate-on-record on July 18, 2023. The plaintiffs filed an application seeking leave to file their written statement to the counter-claim only on March 15, 2024—238 days later.

The Single Judge dismissed the application, holding that the 120-day deadline under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC applied. The Division Bench dismissed the appeal on maintainability and merits. The plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court. The core question: whether the time frame for a defendant's written statement applies to a plaintiff's reply to a counter-claim.

Issues Before the Court

1. Whether the mandatory 120-day deadline under the proviso to Order VIII Rule 1 CPC applies to a plaintiff filing a written statement to a defendant's counter-claim in a commercial suit.

2. Whether an appeal lies under Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act against an order rejecting a belated written statement to a counter-claim.

3. What is the proper interpretation of Order VIII Rule 6G CPC and its interplay with Order VIII Rule 6A(3) and Rule 1.

What Did the Supreme Court Hold?

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the High Court's orders. The Court's reasoning was detailed and authoritative:

Order VIII Rule 6G Applies: The Court held that Order VIII Rule 6G CPC unequivocally states that "the rules relating to a written statement by a defendant shall apply to a written statement filed in answer to a counter-claim." This includes the time limits under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC. The Bombay High Court's view that Rule 6G only relates to contents and not time was rejected.

Order VIII Rule 6A(3) Not Exclusive: While Rule 6A(3) allows the Court to fix time for filing a reply to a counter-claim, the absence of such fixation does not leave the plaintiff with unlimited time. Rule 6G provides the default time frame. Reading Rule 6A(3) as exclusive would defeat the object of the Commercial Courts Act.

Commercial Courts Act Mandates Strict Timelines: The Act's Statement of Objects and Reasons emphasizes speedy disposal of commercial disputes. The amended proviso to Order VIII Rule 1 CPC—allowing a maximum of 120 days with forfeiture of the right to file thereafter—applies to all written statements in commercial suits, whether by defendants or plaintiffs to counter-claims.

Effect of Order VIII Rule 10: Rule 10 provides that if a party fails to file a written statement within the time permitted, the Court may pronounce judgment against that party. The proviso to Rule 10 in commercial suits prohibits extending time beyond the limits of Rule 1. This reinforces the mandatory nature of the deadline.

Order VIII Rule 9 Distinguished: Rule 9 deals with subsequent pleadings (rejoinder/surrejoinder) requiring the Court's leave. A reply to a counter-claim is specifically excepted from Rule 9 and is governed by Rule 6G read with Rule 1.

Appeal Not Maintainable: Under Section 13(1A) of the CC Act, appeals lie only from orders enumerated in Order XLIII CPC or Section 37 of the Arbitration Act. An order rejecting a belated written statement under Order VIII CPC is not enumerated, making such an appeal non-maintainable.

Key Legal Principles

1. Order VIII Rule 6G applies to counter-claim replies — the rules relating to a defendant's written statement, including time limits, apply to a plaintiff's reply to a counter-claim.

2. 120-day deadline is mandatory in commercial suits — the proviso to Order VIII Rule 1 CPC, as amended by the CC Act, applies to all written statements in commercial suits.

3. Order VIII Rule 6A(3) is not exclusive — failure by the Court to fix time under Rule 6A(3) does not grant unlimited time; Rule 6G provides the default time frame.

4. Forfeiture of right to file — after 120 days from service/receipt of the counter-claim, the right to file a written statement is forfeited.

5. No independent right of appeal under Section 13 — appeals under the CC Act lie only from orders enumerated in Order XLIII CPC or Section 37 of the Arbitration Act.

6. Commercial Courts Act aims at speedy disposal — strict timelines are intended to prevent delays in commercial litigation.

7. Order VIII Rule 9 excludes counter-claim replies — replies to counter-claims do not require the Court's leave under Rule 9.

Important Precedents

SCG Contracts (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. K.S. Chamankar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., (2019) 12 SCC 210

• Held that failure to file a written statement within 120 days in a commercial suit entails forfeiture of the right; the Court cannot allow it after the deadline.

BGS SGS SOMA JV v. NHPC Ltd., (2020) 4 SCC 234

• Held that Section 13(1) of the CC Act must be construed to avoid delay; there is no independent right of appeal created under it.

Kandla Export Corporation v. OCI Corporation, (2018) 14 SCC 715

• Held that the proviso to Section 13 restricts appeals to orders enumerated under Order XLIII CPC and Section 37 of the Arbitration Act.

Practical Impact

For advocates: This judgment provides crucial clarity on procedural timelines in commercial suits. When a counter-claim is raised, the plaintiff must file a written statement within 120 days from service/receipt. Advocates cannot rely on the absence of a Court-fixed time under Rule 6A(3) to delay filing. The judgment also clarifies that appeals from procedural orders under Order VIII CPC are not maintainable.

For future litigation: Courts will now uniformly apply the 120-day deadline to counter-claim replies. This will prevent plaintiffs from using procedural loopholes to delay proceedings. The judgment also reinforces that the Commercial Courts Act's strict timelines must be adhered to strictly.

May be cited: In any commercial suit where a plaintiff seeks to belatedly file a written statement to a counter-claim, and in cases where the maintainability of an appeal under Section 13 of the CC Act is in question.

Lawcurb Quick Insight

The Court's rejection of the view that Order VIII Rule 6A(3) exclusively governs counter-claim replies is significant. If the plaintiff could delay indefinitely simply because the Court didn't fix a date, the entire purpose of the Commercial Courts Act—speedy disposal—would be defeated.

Lawcurb Practice Note

When a counter-claim is served in a commercial suit, immediately calculate the 120-day deadline from the date of service. Do not wait for the Court to fix a date under Order VIII Rule 6A(3). File the written statement promptly to avoid forfeiture of the right.

Remember This Ratio

Plaintiff's reply to a counter-claim in a commercial suit is subject to the same 120-day mandatory deadline as a defendant's written statement.

Exam Lens

Q: What is the interplay between Order VIII Rule 6A(3), Rule 6G, and Rule 1 CPC in commercial suits? A: Rule 6A(3) allows the Court to fix time for filing a reply to a counter-claim. However, Rule 6G applies the rules relating to a defendant's written statement—including Rule 1's time limits—to such replies. Therefore, even if the Court does not fix time under Rule 6A(3), the 120-day deadline under Rule 1 (as amended for commercial suits) applies as the default time frame.

Q: Is an appeal maintainable against an order rejecting a belated written statement to a counter-claim? A: No. Under Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, appeals lie only from orders enumerated under Order XLIII CPC or Section 37 of the Arbitration Act. An order under Order VIII CPC is not enumerated, making such an appeal non-maintainable.

Q: What is the consequence of failing to file a written statement to a counter-claim within 120 days in a commercial suit? A: The right to file the written statement is forfeited. The Court cannot allow it to be taken on record after 120 days from the date of service of summons or receipt of the counter-claim. The Court may pronounce judgment against the plaintiff on the counter-claim under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC.

Final Outcome

• Appeals dismissed — the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's orders.

• 120-day deadline applies — plaintiffs are bound by the proviso to Order VIII Rule 1 CPC in filing a reply to a counter-claim.

• Belated filing rejected — the plaintiffs' application to file a written statement after 238 days was rightly rejected.

• Appeal not maintainable — the Division Bench correctly held that no appeal lies under Section 13(1A) against such procedural orders.

• Interim order vacated — the stay granted on May 23, 2025, stands vacated.

• No costs — parties to bear their own costs.

Lawcurb Verdict

This judgment is a significant clarification of procedural law in commercial litigation. By holding that the 120-day deadline applies to counter-claim replies, the Court has closed a procedural loophole that could have been exploited to delay proceedings. The decision is consistent with the Commercial Courts Act's objective of speedy disposal and ensures that plaintiffs cannot delay responding to counter-claims by arguing that no specific time was fixed. A timely and necessary clarification that strengthens the commercial dispute resolution framework.

This report is prepared by Lawcurb for educational and informational purposes only. It is a concise summary of the judgment and should not be construed as legal advice. Readers are encouraged to refer to the original judgment before relying on any legal proposition.