Bengali Remix Music (Opc) Private ... vs Godhuli Bela Music And Ors
2026 Latest Caselaw 1963 Cal/2

Calcutta High Court

Bengali Remix Music (Opc) Private ... vs Godhuli Bela Music And Ors on 17 March, 2026

Author: Arindam Mukherjee

Bench: Arindam Mukherjee

OIPD-2

                                ORDER SHEET

                     IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                                 ORIGINAL SIDE
                     (Intellectual Property Rights Division)

                           IA No. GA-COM/7/2025
                                     In
                              IP-COM/62/2024

              BENGALI REMIX MUSIC (OPC) PRIVATE LIMITED
                              Versus
                   GODHULI BELA MUSIC AND ORS.


BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE ARINDAM MUKHERJEE
Date: 17th March, 2026

                                                                        Appearance:
                                                            Ms. Swarupa Ghosh, Adv.
                                                       Mr. Swapan Chakraborty, Adv.
                                                                    For the plaintiff.

                                                        Mr. Shuvasish Sengupta, Adv.
                                                   Mr. Shounak Mukhopadhyay, Adv.
                                                             Ms. Shyantee Datta, Adv.
                                                   Ms. Samaita Das Chowdhury, Adv.
                                                  For the defendant/respondent no.2.

Mr. Purnendu Moidak, Adv.

For the defendant/respondent no.3.

The Court:- This is an application for condoning the delay and accepting

the written statement on behalf of the defendant no.2 in this suit by granting

necessary extension of time in a suit filed under the provisions of Commercial

Courts Act, 2015. The admitted facts are as follows:

1) The suit was filed on 27th June, 2024.

2) The writ of summons was served on the defendant on 28 th April,

2025.

3) The last date for filing of the written statement by the defendant no.2

was 28th May, 2025.

4) The suit was dismissed for default on 12 th August, 2025.

5) The suit was restored upon an application being made by the plaintiff

a copy whereof was served on the defendant no. 2 and the suit was

restored on 18th September, 2025.

6) The application by the defendant no.2 has been filed on 29 th October,

2025 i.e. beyond 120 days from the date of receipt of the writ of

summons by the said defendant no.2.

The defendant no.2 has made an interesting argument. It is the case of

the defendant no.2 that on suit being restored, the said defendant was entitled

to a fresh summons. Unless the fresh summons has been issued, the time to

file the written statement does not commence on the restoration of the suit

having taken place.

It is also the case of the defendant no.2 that the original time fixed under

the writ of summons served on the defendant no.2 on 28 th April, 2025 has

become otiose with the dismissal of the suit. Unless a fresh writ of summons

has been issued, the question of the commencement of the date of filing of the

written statement will not take place.

The plaintiff says that in the facts of the case it is immaterial whether

they have come after 120 days from the date of receipt of the original summons

issued pursuant to filing of the suit. The time to file the written statement,

according to the defendant no.2, should be extended either granting extension

or by excluding the time between 12 th August, 2025 and 18th September, 2025,

being the time period for which the suit remains dismissed.

On behalf of the plaintiff, it is submitted that the defendant no.2 did not

file the written statement within the time frame provided under the Code of

Civil Procedure (in short, `CPC'), 1908 to a commercial suit after having been

timely served with the writ of summons. The suit was dismissed and

subsequent to expiry of the time period for filing of the suit. The suit having

been restored relates back to its initial filing. Even if the period for which the

suit remained dismissed is excluded then also the defendant no.2 has

approached the Court after expiry of 120 days. There is no explanation in the

application for condoning the delay and granting extension of time.

The hearing, however, could not be concluded.

Let this matter appear on 24th March, 2026 for further consideration.

(ARINDAM MUKHERJEE, J.)

snn.