Calcutta High Court

Central Bank Of India & Ors vs Jay Kumar Goyal And Ors on 6 November, 2025

Author: Aniruddha Roy

Bench: Aniruddha Roy

In the High Court at Calcutta Commercial Division Original Side Judgment (2)

PRESENT : THE HON'BLE JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA ROY

IA NO. GA-COM/3/2025 In CS-COM/83/2025

CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA & ORS VS JAY KUMAR GOYAL AND ORS

For the plaintiffs : Mr. Debnath Ghosh, Sr. Adv. Ms. Sabarni Mukherjee, Adv. Mr. Orijit Chatterjee, Adv. Ms. Shubham Raj, Adv.

For the defendant Nos. 1 to 4 : Mr. SarosijDasgupta, Adv. Mr. Aditya Mondal, Adv.

For the defendant Nos. 5 to 15 : Mr. Rupak Ghosh, Adv. Mr. Rohit Banerjee, Adv. Ms. OindrilaGhosal, Adv.

For the defendant Nos. 19 & 20 : Mr. DhruvChaddha, Adv.

For the defendant Nos. 21 to 25 : Mr. Suryaneel Das, Adv.

Heard on : November 6, 2025

Judgment on :November 6, 2025

IA NO. GA-COM/3/2025 In CS-COM/83/2025 A.R., J.

ANIRUDDHA ROY, J :

FACTS:

1. This is an application filed by the defendant Nos. 5 to 15 in the

pending commercial suit praying for extension of time, beyond 30

days but within 120 days from service of writ of summons to file the

written statement. The prayers from the Master Summon is quoted

below:

"a) Delay of 87 days in filing the Written Statement be condoned;

b) An order be passed permitting the answering defendants to file its Written Statement;

c) Such further order and/or direction be given as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper."

2. According to the defendants/applicants, the Master Summon has

been taken out on November 4, 2025 which is 117th day from the

date of service of writ of summons. The applicants further contend

that today is the 119th day when the application has been taken up

for consideration by this Court but this contention is disputed on

behalf of the plaintiffs contending that today is 120th day.

3. Since on this crucial day be it 119th or 120th, this Court considers

this application, the entire record along with the office record of the

Sheriff has been brought to Court.

4. The relevant dates which are necessary for adjudication of the

instant application available from the records are only narrated.

IA NO. GA-COM/3/2025 In CS-COM/83/2025 A.R., J.

5. On June 19, 2025 the plaint was presented.July 10, 2025 the writ

of summons with the copy of the plaint appended thereto was

served upon the defendant Nos. 5 to 12 and defendant No. 15.

August 18, 2025 the writ of summons with the copy of the plaint

appended thereto was served upon defendant Nos. 13 and 14.

August 9, 2025 the 30 days mandated under the amendment to

Order VIII Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) in the

light of Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (For short 2015 Act)

expired from the service of writ of summons for filing written

statement for defendant Nos. 5 to 12 and defendant No. 15.

September 17, 2025 the said mandate of 30 days expired for

defendant Nos. 13 and 14.November 3, 2024 the written statement

was affirmed by and/or on behalf of defendant Nos. 5 to 15.

November 4, 2025 the Master Summons was taken out. November

7, 2025 the mandate of 120 days period from service of writ of

summons under the amended provisions of Order VIII Rule 1 of

CPC will expire (tomorrow) for the defendant Nos. 5 to 12 and

15.December 16, 2025 the said mandate of 120 days shall expire

for defendant Nos. 13 and 14.

6. The relevant amended provisions from CPC under Order VIII Rule 1

is quoted below:

"Provided that where the defendant fails to file the written statement within the said period of thirty days, he shall be allowed to file the written statement on such other day, as may be specified by the Court, for

IA NO. GA-COM/3/2025 In CS-COM/83/2025 A.R., J.

reasons to be recorded in writing and on payment of such costs as the Court deems fit, but which shall not be later than one hundred and twenty days from the date of service of summons and on expiry of one hundred and twenty days from the date of service of summons, the defendant shall forfeit the right to file the written statement and the court shall not allow the written to be taken on record."

7. The plea taken by the defendants/ applicants in support of their

contentions seeking extension of time beyond 30 days but within

120 days from affidavit in support of Master Summons are quoted

below:

"6. There has been a delay of merely 87 days in filing the written statement counted from the date of service of summons to the filing of this instant application. By way of the present application, the answering defendants humbly seek extension of time to file the written statement. The explanation/reasons for such inadvertent delay in fling the written are detailed in the ensuing paragraphs.

7. The plaint filed is extremely voluminous, consisting of eleven (11) volumes of plaint. Furthermore, the plaintiffs have also filed an interim application, being GA No. 1 of 2025, which also consists of eleven (11) volumes. The exercise of perusing and scrutinizing such voluminous records, as also collection of necessary data and documents, prior to preparation of the Written Statement, was an extremely onerous and time-consuming process.

IA NO. GA-COM/3/2025 In CS-COM/83/2025 A.R., J.

8. The share transfers challenged in the instant plaint, as concerning the answering defendants, occurred around 7 years ago. Resultantly, the answering defendants required more time to gathering necessary records and documents.

9. The answering defendants and their advocates were further occupied in defending the interim application, being GA 1 of 2025, filed by the plaintiffs. The hearing of such application before this Hon'ble Court concluded very shortly before the Puja Vacations. The advocates of the answering defendants drafted the such written statement shortly after conclusion of the aforementioned hearings. However, such written statement could not be settled during the Puja Vacation on account of non-availability of Ld. Senior Counsel during the Puja Vacation. The written statements were accordingly settled by Ld. Senior Counsel shortly after the Puja Vacations concluded.

10. It is re-iterated that the aforementioned delay in filing the written statement is entirely inadvertent and has occurred as a result of the aforementioned circumstances. There can be no laches and/or negligence attributed to the answering defendants in preparing and filing the said written statement.

11. I state that the written statement on behalf of the defendant nos. 5-15 has been prepared for filing and has been duly affirmed within the one hundred and twenty (120) days period which is the maximum limit for allowing the filling of the written statement under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The instant application too, is being filed prior to expiry of such period.

IA NO. GA-COM/3/2025 In CS-COM/83/2025 A.R., J.

SUBMISSIONS:

8. Mr. Rupak Ghosh, learned Counsel for the

defendants/applicants relying upon the averments made in the

supporting affidavit submits that the plaint is voluminous and

divided in 11 volumes with voluminous documents annexed

thereto which were relied upon by the plaintiffs. To peruse and

scrutinize those voluminous records and for collecting necessary

date and documents was an essential requirement for

preparation of the written statement which was a time-

consuming process. He further submits that the alleged share

transfers under challenge in the plaint concerning the

defendants,occurred around seven years ago, as a result, the

defendants required more time to gather necessary records and

documents before preparing the written statement.

9. Learned Counsel, Mr. Rupak Ghosh, then submits that two

interlocutory applications were vigorously contested by the

parties. One being an application for injunction filed by the

plaintiffs, the other being an application for revocation of leave

granted under Section 12A of the 2015 Act filed by the

defendant No. 1. Both the applications were considered

analogously and hearing was concluded on September 22, 2025

and the judgment was delivered on October 29, 2025. Learned

IA NO. GA-COM/3/2025 In CS-COM/83/2025 A.R., J.

Counsel entrusted for drafting the written statement ultimately

received instruction and started to draw the written statement

after hearing in the interlocutory applications were concluded.

Then the written statement was settled shortly after Puja

Vacation by the learned Senior Counsel.

10. In the light of above plea, Mr. Rupak Ghosh, learned Counsel

submits that defendants have acted with utmost endeavor and

expedition and prepared the written statement. The written

statement was served on learned Advocate on Record of the

plaintiff on November 4, 2025 and the same is also annexed to

the supporting affidavit in support of the Master Summons.

Accordingly, if time is not extended as prayed for in the Master

Summons and the written statement is not allowed to be filed,

the defendants shall suffer irreparable prejudice and hardship

and would have no other means to establish theirdefence on

record.

11. In support of his contention, Mr. Rupak Ghosh, learned

Counsel has relied upon an unreported decision of Co-ordinate

Bench in the matter of Exide Industries Limited Vs. Amara

Raja Energy And Mobility Limited dated September 22, 2025

rendered in IA No. GA-COM/3/2025 in IP-COM/18/2025.

12. Mr. DebnathGhosh, learned Senior Counsel has vehemently

opposedthe submissions made on behalf of the defendants. At

the threshold learned Senior Counsel submits his clients must

IA NO. GA-COM/3/2025 In CS-COM/83/2025 A.R., J.

be granted an opportunity to file affidavit in oppositionto deal

with the statements made in the supporting affidavit.

13. Referring to the averments made in paragraph 6 to 11 from

the supporting affidavit, Mr. Debnath Ghosh, learned Senior

Counsel submits that all documents which are part of the written

statement and disclosed as list of documents, as mandatory

disclosure, by the defendants/applicants were all within the

notice and knowledge of the defendants much prior in time when

the defendants contested the interlocutory applications as all

those documents and records were made part of the plaint. An

alleged arbitration award has been relied upon by the defendants

which was also within their notice and knowledge much prior in

point of time. Therefore, there was no reason for the defendants

not to file written statement within the mandatory period of 30

days under CPC.

14. Specifically referring to the averments made in paragraph 8,

Mr. Debnath Ghosh, learned Senior Counsel submits that some

of the share transactions may be of seven years ago but not all.

Some of such alleged transactions are of recent past. Therefore,

the statement made in paragraph 8 in the supporting affidavits

are not true and correct and accordingly, the same stands denied

by the plaintiff.

15. He then refers to the averments made in paragraph 9 to the

application and submits that pendency of interlocutory

IA NO. GA-COM/3/2025 In CS-COM/83/2025 A.R., J.

applications cannot be a ground and not provided under statute

for defaulting the mandatory period of 30 days. The defendants

could have filed their written statement without prejudice to their

rights and contentions. In support, he has relied upon a decision

of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported at (2019) 12 Supreme

Court Cases 210, In the matter of: SCG Contracts (India)

Private Limited Vs. K. S. Chamankar Infrastructure Private

Limited And Others.

16. In the light of the above submissions, learned Senior Counsel

Mr. Debnath Ghosh submits that there is no sufficient cause

shown or cogent reason mentioned in the supporting affidavit, on

which this Court should allow the written statement to be filed

after the mandatory 30 days time schedule and the application

should be dismissed in limine.

DECISIONS :

17. After considering rival contentions of the parties and upon

perusal of the materials on record, it appears to this Court that,

the facts narrated above on perusal of the suit records are

correct and undisputed.

18. At the threshold, this Court deals with the prayer made by the

plaintiffs to file affidavit-in-opposition. A plain reading of the

averments made in the supporting affidavit, in paragraphs 6 to

11 thereof, it appears to this Court that the facts stated therein

cannot be controverted by the plaintiffs by filing any opposition.

IA NO. GA-COM/3/2025 In CS-COM/83/2025 A.R., J.

The relevant dates, as narrated above are admitted, as the same

dates are available on the original suit record. It is an admitted

fact that the plaint and the interlocutory application for

injunction consist of eleven volumes filed by the plaintiffs. Even

if, the contention of Mr. Debnath Ghosh, learned Senior Advocate

is taken for consideration that all the alleged share transactions

were not of 7 years ago and some of them are of the recent times,

then also to record such contention no affidavit-in-opposition is

required to be filed. The contention of the plaintiff that the

pendency of the two interlocutory applications, should not debar

the defendants to file its written statement within the mandate of

30 days is also not provided under any law prevailing on the

issue. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that today,

on the crucial day of 119th or 120th, affidavit-in-opposition if is

directed to be filed the same will not improve the case of the

plaintiff any further to controvert the averments in the

supporting affidavit is concerned, save and except keeping the

application pending. The point raised by the parties herein are

point of law coupled with some facts and such facts are available

on records. As such, the prayer for filing affidavit stands

overruled and rejected.

19. On harmonious and meaningful reading of the amendments

to Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC, it appears to this Court that, if the

defendant fails to file written statement within the said period of

IA NO. GA-COM/3/2025 In CS-COM/83/2025 A.R., J.

30 days mandate, he shall be allowed to file the written

statement on such other day, as may be specified by the Court,

for reasons to be recorded in writing and on payment of such

costs as the Court deems it fit but the same shall not be later

than 120 days from the date of service of summons and on

expiry of 120 days from the date of service of summons. Then

the right to file written statement by the defendant shall be

forfeited. Admittedly, in the instant case, the master summon

has been taken out well within the 120 days from the date of

service of writ of summons. The expression used in the said

amendment ".......where the defendant fails to file the written

statement within the said period of thirty days, he shall be

allowed to file the written statement on such other day, as may

be specified by the Court, for reasons to be recorded in writing

and on payment of such costs as the Court deems fit,.....,"

undoubtedly, gives the Court an authority and power to use its

discretion. However, the discretion has to be used judiciously.

The use of such discretion shall always depend upon facts of

each case.

20. Furthermore, when the legislature thought it fit to introduce a

provision for awarding of cost as the court deems fit, under the said

amended provision of CPC, this Court is of the firm view that upon

payment of a penalty by the defaulting party a curative provision

has been laid down by the legislature so that the defaulting party

IA NO. GA-COM/3/2025 In CS-COM/83/2025 A.R., J.

shall not be deburred from taking its defense to the claim made by

the suitor against it in an action subject to the restriction of 120

days provided thereunder.

21. The Coordinate Bench In the matter of: Exide Industries

Limited (Supra) has observed as under:-

"In an adversarial system, it is always preferable for a party to contest a matter on merits rather than gain an advantage by way of not permitting their opponent to file its pleading. Of course, in view of the embargo this does not contemplate an extension being granted beyond the mandatory 120 day period. If the Written Statement has been served on the defendant within the 120 day period and a copy of an application seeking extension is on record, the Court is not to hold a mini-trial to adjudicate on the issue of condonation. In a matter of such nature, when the parties are bitterly contesting the interlocutory proceedings, the defendant cannot possibly benefit by not filing of the Written Statement to an extent that its right gets forfeited. On the contrary, refusing to condone the delay within 120 day period defeats the cause of justice. It is not necessary for the defendant to explain every day's delay, or every hour's delay or every second's delay. In such matters the Courts ought to adopt a rational, common sense and pragmatic approach in considering the plea for condonation. If the written statement is on record and an application for extension of time has been filed within the 120 day period, technical considerations cannot outweigh the cause of substantial justice moreso when the delay in filing the Written Statement is unintentional and not deliberate. [Rajendra Kumar Kothari &Anr. Vs. Varun Kumar Kothari (unreported decision of the Division Bench, High Court at Calcutta dated 17th February, 2025 in A.P.O. No. 106 of 2023); SKM Agro Private Limited vs. Paritosh Biswas (unreported decision of the High Court at Calcutta dated 15th September, 2022 in IA No. GA/2/2022 in CS/1/2022); M/s. Ashok Exporters and Importers &Ors.vs. M/s. Imax Infrastructure Private Limited and Ors. (unreported decision of the High Court at

IA NO. GA-COM/3/2025 In CS-COM/83/2025 A.R., J.

Calcutta dated 12th November, 2024 in IA NO.GA- COM/2/2024 in CS-COM.534/202)]; Skipper Limited vs. Surender Kumar Goyal (unreported decision of the High Court at Calcutta dated 22nd November, 2024 in IA NO. GA-COM/4/2024 in CS-

COM/562/2024)."

22. This Court has been informed that, as of date, no appeal has

been carried out from the said judgment In the matter of Exide

Industries Limited (Supra).

23. Right to file written statement is also statutory right which is

in conformity with the elementary principle of natural justice. If

the defendant is denied of this right of filing written statement, if

it is otherwise permitted to be filed by extending the time to be

extended by the Court within the meaning of the four corners of

the relevant statute, then such valuable right to defend the

proceeding by the defendant would be defeated. For procedural

lapses, substantive justice should not suffer by taking away a

substantive right of a party.

24. Considering the averments made in the application, it appears

to this Court that when admittedly the plaint is voluminous with

plenty of documents and records, to file a written statement

thereto to place its defence by the defendant, some more time

even beyond the schedule under the statute may be granted as

the time can be extended by the Court under the amendment to

Order VIII Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure by exercising its

discretion in the facts of the case.,

IA NO. GA-COM/3/2025 In CS-COM/83/2025 A.R., J.

25. In view of the forgoing reasons and discussions, the

mandatory period of 30 days stands extended till today and the

applicants/defendants shall be at liberty to file its written

statement before the concerned Department by 6.00 p.m. today

as a special case as it is already 10 past 4.00 p.m.

26. The defendants shall pay costs of Rs.50,000/- in favour of

State Legal Services Authority, West Bengal positively within 7

days from the date, failing which the written statement shall be

returned to the defendants and no cognizance shall be taken

thereupon. The applicants/defendants shall produce a copy of

the money receipt for the cost to be paid to the learned Advocate

on record for the plaintiff. The fiat on the written statement shall

be endorsed accordingly by the officer of this Court.

27. Accordingly, the instant application being IA GA-COM 03 of

2025 stands allowed.

(ANIRUDDHA ROY, J.)

Sbghosh/mg

IA NO. GA-COM/3/2025 In CS-COM/83/2025 A.R., J.

IA NO. GA-COM/3/2025 In CS-COM/83/2025 A.R., J.