The Supreme Court has ruled that plaintiffs in commercial disputes cannot take unlimited time to respond to a defendant's counterclaim. The Court held that the strict 120-day timeline prescribed under the Commercial Courts Act for filing written statements also applies to a plaintiff's reply to a counterclaim. The judgment came while dismissing appeals filed by A.K. Ghosh & Company and others against an order of the Calcutta High Court.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose out of transactions involving the supply of printing paper. A.K. Ghosh & Company claimed that the defendants had failed to clear outstanding dues amounting to ₹74.65 lakh along with interest. After the claim was denied, the plaintiffs filed a commercial recovery suit before the Calcutta High Court.
During the proceedings, the defendants filed their written statement along with a counterclaim, which was served on the plaintiffs in July 2023. However, the plaintiffs sought permission to file their written statement to the counterclaim only in March 2024, after about 238 days had passed.
The Single Judge of the High Court rejected the request, hol ding that the statutory time limit had expired. The Division Bench later dismissed the plaintiffs' appeal, both on merits and on the ground that such an appeal was not maintainable under the Commercial Courts Act.
Court's Observations
A Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran examined whether the 120-day limit applicable to defendants filing written statements in commercial suits also governs a plaintiff's response to a defendant's counterclaim.
The Court answered the question in the affirmative.
The Bench observed that a counterclaim is treated as a cross-suit under the Code of Civil Procedure and that Order VIII Rule 6G specifically provides that the rules governing written statements by defendants also apply to written statements filed in answer to counterclaims.
Rejecting the argument that the court must first fix a separate timeline under Order VIII Rule 6A(3), the Bench said such an interpretation would defeat the objective of the Commercial Courts Act.
The judgment noted:
"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, namely speedy and timely completion of the pleadings."
The Court further explained that allowing plaintiffs to decide their own timeline whenever a court had not fixed one would undermine the legislative goal of ensuring the prompt disposal of commercial disputes.
Appeal Held Not Maintainable
The Supreme Court also examined whether the appeal before the Commercial Appellate Division of the High Court was maintainable.
It held that appeals under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act are confined to orders specifically listed under Order XLIII of the Code of Civil Procedure or Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Since an order refusing permission to file a delayed written statement under Order VIII is not included in those provisions, no statutory appeal was available.
The Bench observed that the Commercial Courts Act is a self-contained legislation and appellate remedies cannot be expanded beyond what Parliament has expressly provided.
Supreme Court's Decision
Dismissing both civil appeals, the Supreme Court upheld the orders passed by the Single Judge and the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court.
The Court held that in commercial suits, a plaintiff must ordinarily file a written statement to a defendant's counterclaim within 30 days. The period may be extended on sufficient cause, subject to costs and recorded reasons, but cannot exceed 120 days from the date of service of the counterclaim. Once that outer limit expires, the right to file the written statement is forfeited.
Finding no legal error in the High Court's approach, the Court dismissed the appeals, vacated the interim stay granted earlier, and directed the parties to bear their own costs.
Case Details:
Case Title: A.K. Ghosh & Company and others v. Biman Bose and others
Case Number: Civil Appeal Nos. ____ of 2026 (@ SLP (C) Nos. 15817 & 15818 of 2025)
Judge: Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
Decision Date: 13 July 2026
-300x169.webp)
