Commercial Plaintiffs Must File Written Statements to Counter-Claims Within the Mandatory 120-Day Limit
1. Introduction
In A.K. Ghosh & Company v. Biman Bose, 2026 INSC 684, the Supreme Court of India settled an important procedural question under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
The central issue was whether the strict and mandatory 120-day outer limit prescribed for a defendant to file a written statement in a commercial suit also applies when the plaintiff has to file a written statement in response to a counter-claim raised by the defendant.
The plaintiffs, A.K. Ghosh & Company and others, had filed a commercial recovery suit against Biman Bose and others for unpaid dues relating to supply of printing paper. The contesting defendants filed a written statement along with a counter-claim. The plaintiffs sought leave to file their written statement to the counter-claim after 238 days. The Calcutta High Court refused permission, and the Division Bench dismissed the appeal both on merits and maintainability. The plaintiffs then approached the Supreme Court.
2. Summary of the Judgment
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the orders of the Calcutta High Court.
The Court held that in a commercial suit governed by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, a plaintiff who wishes to file a written statement to a defendant’s counter-claim is bound by the same strict timeline applicable to a defendant under the proviso to Order VIII Rule 1 CPC.
Therefore, such written statement must ordinarily be filed within 30 days from service or receipt of the counter-claim. The Court may extend the time for sufficient cause, with reasons recorded and costs imposed, but not beyond 120 days.
The Court further held that an appeal against an order refusing leave to file a belated written statement under Order VIII CPC is not maintainable under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act unless the order is appealable under Order XLIII CPC or Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
3. Analysis
A. Precedents Cited
This precedent was central to the Court’s reasoning. In that case, the Supreme Court had held that where a defendant in a commercial suit fails to file a written statement within 120 days from service of summons, the right to file the written statement is forfeited and the court has no power to take it on record thereafter.
The present judgment extends the logic of SCG Contracts to a plaintiff’s written statement in response to a counter-claim. The Court reasoned that if strict timelines are essential for defendants in commercial suits, they must equally apply to plaintiffs responding to counter-claims, because a counter-claim functions like a cross-suit.
Nirottam Sharma v. Ramkishore and another
The Rajasthan High Court had taken the view that the trial court must fix time under Order VIII Rule 6A(3) CPC for the plaintiff to reply to a counter-claim, and if no time is fixed, the plaintiff cannot be penalised.
The Supreme Court did not accept this liberal approach for commercial suits. It held that absence of a court-fixed time does not give the plaintiff unlimited freedom. Order VIII Rule 6G CPC applies the rules relating to written statements by defendants to written statements filed in answer to counter-claims.
The Madras High Court had held that the rule in SCG Contracts would not apply to a plaintiff’s written statement to a counter-claim and that such cases are governed by Order VIII Rule 6A(3) CPC, especially where the court had not fixed a time.
The Supreme Court disagreed with this reasoning. It observed that such an interpretation would defeat the purpose of the Commercial Courts Act, which is to ensure speedy disposal of commercial disputes.
The Bombay High Court had followed an earlier view that Order VIII Rule 1 CPC does not govern the filing of a written statement to a counter-claim, and that Order VIII Rule 6A(3) CPC alone applies.
The Supreme Court rejected this interpretation, holding that Order VIII Rule 6G CPC cannot be narrowly read as applying only to the contents of a written statement. It applies the entire set of rules relating to written statements, including timelines.
Mrs. Shalini Nunes Mascarenhas v. Mr. Trevor Nunes
This Bombay High Court decision had held that Order VIII Rule 6G CPC relates only to the content of a written statement and not the time for filing it. The Supreme Court expressly disagreed with that approach, stating that the language of Rule 6G is broad and unqualified.
The Delhi High Court had permitted filing of a written statement to a counter-claim in circumstances involving procedural confusion, including transfer of the suit and registration issues. The Supreme Court noted that this case turned on its peculiar facts and did not lay down a general rule contrary to the mandatory timelines in commercial suits.
This case was cited by the plaintiffs to argue that when the legislature expressly mentions one thing and omits another, the omission must be treated as intentional. The plaintiffs contended that since Order VIII Rule 1 specifically refers to defendants, it should not be extended to plaintiffs replying to counter-claims.
The Supreme Court rejected this argument in the present context. It held that Order VIII Rule 6G CPC expressly bridges that gap by applying the rules relating to a defendant’s written statement to a written statement in answer to a counter-claim.
This decision was cited on the maintainability of appeals under the Commercial Courts Act. The Supreme Court reiterated that Section 13 of the Act does not create an independent right of appeal; it merely provides the forum where an appeal is otherwise maintainable.
This precedent clarified that under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, appeals are restricted to orders specifically enumerated under Order XLIII CPC and Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Applying that rule, the Supreme Court held that the plaintiffs’ appeal before the Division Bench was not maintainable.
B. Legal Reasoning
The Supreme Court’s reasoning rests on the character of a counter-claim and the purpose of the Commercial Courts Act.
A counter-claim under Order VIII Rule 6A CPC is treated as a cross-suit. It has the effect of enabling the court to decide both the plaintiff’s claim and the defendant’s counter-claim in the same proceeding. Since the counter-claim is treated like a plaint, the plaintiff’s reply to it is effectively a written statement.
Order VIII Rule 6G CPC 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 Court held that this includes not only the form and content of the written statement but also the timeline for filing it.
The Court emphasized that the Commercial Courts Act was enacted to ensure speedy disposal of high-value commercial disputes. Allowing plaintiffs to file replies to counter-claims without a strict outer limit would undermine this objective.
The Court therefore harmonised Order VIII Rule 6A(3), Rule 6G, Rule 1, Rule 9 and Rule 10 CPC. It held that if the court fixes a time under Rule 6A(3), that time must be followed. If no time is fixed, Rule 6G brings in the mandatory timeline under Rule 1. In either case, the outer limit remains 120 days in a commercial suit.
C. Impact of the Judgment
This judgment brings procedural certainty to commercial litigation. Plaintiffs can no longer argue that because Order VIII Rule 1 CPC expressly refers to defendants, the 120-day limit does not apply to their replies to counter-claims.
The decision will likely reduce delays in commercial suits involving counter-claims. It also discourages parties from using procedural ambiguity to prolong pleadings.
Importantly, the judgment clarifies that courts do not have residual discretion to accept such written statements beyond 120 days. Once the period expires, the right is forfeited.
On appellate procedure, the ruling reinforces the restrictive nature of Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act. Not every interlocutory order in a commercial suit is appealable. Appeals lie only where expressly permitted.
4. Complex Concepts Simplified
Counter-Claim
A counter-claim is a claim made by the defendant against the plaintiff in the same suit. Instead of filing a separate suit, the defendant can raise his own claim in the plaintiff’s suit.
Written Statement
A written statement is the formal defence filed in response to a claim. When a defendant files it, he responds to the plaint. When a plaintiff files it against a counter-claim, he responds to the defendant’s counter-claim.
120-Day Rule
In commercial suits, a written statement must normally be filed within 30 days. The court may extend the time, but not beyond 120 days. After 120 days, the right to file is lost.
Forfeiture of Right
This means the party permanently loses the legal right to file the written statement after the statutory deadline.
Appeal as a Creature of Statute
A party has no automatic right to appeal every order. An appeal exists only if a statute specifically provides for it.
5. Conclusion
The Supreme Court has laid down a clear rule: in commercial suits, a plaintiff’s written statement to a defendant’s counter-claim is subject to the same mandatory 120-day outer limit that applies to a defendant’s written statement.
The judgment strengthens the objective of the Commercial Courts Act by ensuring strict discipline in pleadings and preventing delay. It also confirms that appeals under the Act are limited and cannot be maintained unless expressly permitted by law.
The decision is significant because it closes a procedural loophole and aligns counter-claim procedure with the broader goal of speedy commercial dispute resolution.