Soneko Marketing Pvt Ltd vs Rashmi Metaliks Ltd
2025 Latest Caselaw 3233 Cal/2

Calcutta High Court

Soneko Marketing Pvt Ltd vs Rashmi Metaliks Ltd on 1 December, 2025

Author: Aniruddha Roy

Bench: Aniruddha Roy

                                                                                     2022:CHC-OS:6105
OC-9

                      In The High Court at Calcutta
                          Commercial Division
                             Original Side

                        IA No. GA-COM/8/2025
                         [Old No. CS/25/2014]
                         In CS-COM/739/2024

                     SONEKO MARKETING PVT LTD
                               VS
                       RASHMI METALIKS LTD



BEFORE :
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA ROY
Date : December 1, 2025.

                                                                   Appearance :
                                                     Mr. Sarosij Dasgupta, Adv.
                                                 Mr. Biswaroop Mukherjee, Adv.
                                                          Ms. Saheli Bose, Adv.
                                                              ...for the plaintiff

                                                        Mr. Subhankar Nag, Adv.
                                                          Mr. Chayan Gupta, Adv.
                                                           Mr. Avishek Guha, Adv.
                                                            Mr. Subhajit Das, Adv.
                                                 .... for the defendant/applicant


       The Court :- This is an application filed by the defendant.

       Mr. Subhankar Nag, learned Advocate with Mr. Chayan Gupta,

learned Advocate appearing for the defendant submits that by a judgment

and order dated September 2, 2025, the coordinate Bench has allowed

the application filed by the defendant to carry out the amendment in the

written statement.

       Following the said judgment, the defendant has already carried out

its amendment in the written statement and submitted it before the

department but since the amendment was not taken out within the
                                         2

                                                                              2022:CHC-OS:6105
timeframe in terms of Rule 18 to Order VI of CPC, the amended written

statement was not allowed to be taken on record by the department.

       Mr. Sarosij Dasgupta, learned Advocate appearing for the plaintiff

has opposed the application vehemently.

       Considering the nature of relief claimed by the defendant and

considering the fact that once the amendment has been allowed by this

Court and there is no absolute bar under the provision of Rule 18 to

Order VI of CPC for filing a written statement, as the timeframe may be

extended by the Court, upon reading the explanation given in the

supporting affidavit, this Court is satisfied that reasons shown are

sufficient, just and cogent.

       Accordingly, the defendant shall present the amended written

statement positively within two weeks from date before the department

concerned and the department shall immediately accept the same, subject

to scrutiny and then shall make it part of record, subject to payment of

costs of Rs.5,000/- to be paid by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff.

       In view of the above, IA No.GA-COM/8/2025 stands allowed, on

the above terms.




                                                       (ANIRUDDHA ROY, J.)


RS




                               IA No. GA-COM/8/2025
                                [Old No. CS/25/2014]
                                In CS-COM/739/2024
                                       A.R., J.