top of page
Search

Supreme Court: Written Statement to Counter-Claim Must Be Filed Within 120 Days in Commercial Suits

  • Writer: Kaustav Chowdhury
    Kaustav Chowdhury
  • Aug 18
  • 8 min read

In A.K. Ghosh and Company and Others v. Biman Bose and Others (2026 INSC 684), decided on July 13, 2026, the Supreme Court of India held that a plaintiff in a commercial suit governed by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 must file a written statement in response to a defendant's counter-claim within the mandatory 120-day outer limit prescribed under the proviso to Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). A Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran dismissed the appeals, affirming that the procedural timelines applicable to defendants extend equally to plaintiffs responding to counter-claims by operation of Order VIII Rule 6G CPC. The judgment arose from a commercial recovery suit in the Calcutta High Court where the plaintiffs sought to file their reply to a counter-claim after 238 days.


Background and Context

The Commercial Courts Act, 2015 was enacted to ensure the speedy resolution of high-value commercial disputes. One of its key procedural mechanisms is the strict timeline imposed on the filing of written statements. The proviso to Order VIII Rule 1 CPC, as modified for commercial suits by section 16 of the Commercial Courts Act, provides that a defendant must file a written statement within 30 days of service of summons, extendable by the Court for sufficient cause up to a maximum of 120 days. Crucially, failure to file within this period results in forfeiture of the right to file the written statement, with no possibility of extension. The proviso to Order VIII Rule 10 CPC reinforces this by affirming that no Court shall make an order to extend the time provided under Order VIII Rule 1 for filing of the written statement in a commercial suit.

Order VIII Rule 6A CPC permits a defendant to raise a counter-claim in the same suit, avoiding multiplicity of proceedings. Order VIII Rule 6E deals with default by a plaintiff in replying to a counter-claim, empowering the Court to pronounce judgment against the plaintiff or make such order as it thinks fit. Order VIII Rule 6G, titled "Rules relating to written statement to apply," 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. The question that arose in this case was whether the mandatory 120-day outer limit applicable to a defendant's written statement in a commercial suit also applies when a plaintiff has to file a written statement in response to a counter-claim. The question has significant practical importance for commercial litigation, where strict adherence to procedural deadlines is essential. The enforcement of mandatory timelines in dispute resolution proceedings has been a recurring theme in recent judicial pronouncements.


Facts of the Case

The plaintiffs, A.K. Ghosh and Company and others, had filed a commercial recovery suit (CS (COM) No. 440 of 2024) against Biman Bose and others before the Calcutta High Court for unpaid dues relating to the supply of printing paper. The contesting defendants filed a written statement along with a counter-claim. Copies of the written statement and counter-claim were served on the plaintiffs' advocate-on-record.

The plaintiffs, however, sought leave to file their written statement in response to the counter-claim only after 238 days. The Commercial Division of the Calcutta High Court refused permission (by order dated August 19, 2024, in GA (COM) No. 4 of 2024), holding that Order VIII Rule 6G CPC extended the timeline applicable to a defendant's written statement to a written statement filed in answer to a counter-claim. The Commercial Appellate Division dismissed the plaintiffs' appeal, both on the ground that it was not maintainable under section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act and on merits.

Senior Advocate Jaideep Gupta, argued that the 120-day limit applicable to defendants could not be applied to plaintiffs replying to counter-claims, especially when no time had been fixed by the Court under Order VIII Rule 6A(3) CPC. The respondents were represented by Senior Advocate Rauf Rahim.


Key Holdings and Observations

1. Order VIII Rule 6G Extends Written Statement Timeline to Counter-Claim Replies

The Court held that Order VIII Rule 6G CPC unequivocally applies the rules relating to a written statement by a defendant to a written statement filed in answer to a counter-claim. The Bench stated that the phrasing of Order VIII Rule 6G does not allow for any restriction to be read into the provision. It applies not only to the contents of a written statement but also to the time limit for filing such written statement. In the context of a commercial suit, extending the strict temporal requirement relating to the filing of a written statement by a defendant to the filing of a written statement to a counter-claim is rational, as it achieves the same purpose: speedy and timely completion of the pleadings so as to enable faster disposal.

2. Counter-Claim is On Par with a Plaint

The Court observed that a counter-claim filed by a defendant in a suit is on par with a plaint, insofar as the defendant's claim is concerned. The reply filed by the plaintiff is nothing other than the plaintiff's written statement in response thereto. Order VIII Rule 6E CPC, which deals with default in replying to a counter-claim, reinforces this equivalence by empowering the Court to pronounce judgment against the plaintiff in relation to the counter-claim.

3. Plaintiff Must File Within 30 Days, Extendable to 120 Days

The Court held that a plaintiff in a commercial suit must file a written statement to a counter-claim ordinarily within 30 days from the date of receipt of the counter-claim. If the plaintiff fails to file within that time but offers sufficient cause for the delay, the Court may extend the time, for reasons to be recorded in writing and upon payment of appropriate costs, but not beyond 120 days from the date of receipt of the counter-claim. This is consistent with the legislative objective of the Commercial Courts Act, which seeks to ensure that commercial disputes are resolved within strict procedural timelines, similar to the strict procedural requirements under Sections 230 to 232 of the Companies Act, 2013.

4. Forfeiture of Right After 120 Days

Relying on SCG Contracts (India) Private Limited v. K.S. Chamankar Infrastructure Private Limited (2019), the Court reiterated that failure to file a written statement within 120 days in a commercial suit results in forfeiture of the right, with no possibility of turning the clock back. The proviso to Order VIII Rule 10 CPC emphasizes this by affirming that no Court shall make an order to extend the time provided under Order VIII Rule 1 for filing of the written statement.

5. Bombay High Court View Disagreed With

The Court expressly disagreed with the Bombay High Court's view that Order VIII Rule 6G CPC relates only to the contents of a written statement to a counter-claim and not to the time limit for filing. The Supreme Court held that such a restricted reading would be inconsistent with the text of the provision and the purpose of the Commercial Courts Act.

6. Clock Runs Without Court Fixing Time Under Rule 6A(3)

The Court held that while Order VIII Rule 6A(3) CPC enables the Court to fix the time for the plaintiff to file a written statement to a counter-claim, in the absence of time being fixed under that provision, Rule 6G of Order VIII applies the proviso to Rule 1 so as to set the temporal outer limit, beyond which such a written statement cannot be filed. To interpret the provisions otherwise would render one or the other unworkable, apart from doing violence to the aims of the Commercial Courts Act.

7. Appeal Not Maintainable Under Section 13

Referring to BGS SGS SOMA JV v. NHPC Limited (2020) and Kandla Export Corporation v. OCI Corporation (2018), the Court held that appeals under section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act lie only against orders specifically enumerated under Order XLIII CPC or section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. An order refusing leave to file a belated written statement, passed under Order VIII CPC, is not appealable under Order XLIII CPC. The Court affirmed that the Commercial Courts Act is a self-contained code, and the scope of appellate jurisdiction is strictly limited by the statute, as the Supreme Court has consistently held in its recent commercial law jurisprudence.


Analysis and Implications

The judgment reinforces the strict procedural regime that governs commercial litigation in India. The Commercial Courts Act, 2015 was specifically designed to expedite the resolution of high-value disputes by imposing mandatory timelines and eliminating the scope for adjournments and delays. The Court's interpretation of Order VIII Rule 6G, extending the 120-day limit to plaintiffs responding to counter-claims, is consistent with this legislative purpose and eliminates an asymmetry that could have been exploited to cause delay.

For practitioners, the immediate implication is clear: upon receipt of a counter-claim in a commercial suit, the plaintiff must treat the filing of a written statement with the same urgency as a defendant would treat the filing of a written statement to the original suit. The 30-day initial period begins to run from the date of receipt of the counter-claim, and the 120-day outer limit is absolute.

The judgment also clarifies that the absence of a specific order by the Court fixing time under Order VIII Rule 6A(3) does not suspend the running of the timeline. Rule 6G operates independently to import the temporal limits prescribed by Rule 1. This is an important clarification, as some practitioners had operated on the assumption that the clock would begin only when the Court expressly directed the plaintiff to file a reply within a specified period.

The Court's ruling on the non-maintainability of the appeal further underscores the finality of procedural orders in commercial suits. Litigants who fail to meet the mandatory timelines cannot seek relief through appellate proceedings, as the Commercial Courts Act confines appeals to a specific and limited category of orders. This should prompt parties to exercise greater diligence in monitoring and meeting procedural deadlines from the outset of the litigation.


Key Takeaways

  • A plaintiff in a commercial suit must file a written statement to a counter-claim within 30 days, extendable to a maximum of 120 days, under Order VIII Rule 6G read with Order VIII Rule 1 CPC.

  • Failure to file within 120 days results in automatic forfeiture of the right to file the written statement; the Court cannot grant further extensions.

  • The timeline runs from the date of receipt of the counter-claim, regardless of whether the Court has fixed a specific date under Order VIII Rule 6A(3).

  • Order VIII Rule 6G applies all the rules relating to a defendant's written statement, including the time limit for filing, to a plaintiff's reply to a counter-claim.

  • An order refusing leave to file a belated written statement is not appealable under section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

  • The Supreme Court has expressly disagreed with the Bombay High Court's restrictive interpretation of Order VIII Rule 6G CPC.

  • The judgment applies to all pending commercial suits governed by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.


Conclusion

A.K. Ghosh and Company v. Biman Bose is a significant ruling that settles an important procedural question in commercial litigation. The Supreme Court has made it clear that the procedural rigour of the Commercial Courts Act applies equally to both plaintiffs and defendants. Practitioners handling commercial suits must ensure that they calendar the 30-day and 120-day deadlines from the moment a counter-claim is received, as the consequences of delay are irreversible. The judgment serves as a reminder that the legislative intent behind the Commercial Courts Act, the expeditious resolution of commercial disputes, will be enforced strictly, and parties that fail to comply with the prescribed timelines do so at the cost of their substantive rights.

Comments

bottom of page