Author: Priya Sharma, Savitribai Phule Pune University

This case addresses a pivotal procedural question under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”), namely whether, in a commercial suit, the filing of the written statement beyond the statutory 120‑day period (from service of summons) can ever be permitted by the court. The court held that, in suits governed by the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015 (“Commercial Courts Act, 2015”), the timeline is mandatory, and no extension is permissible beyond 120 days. The decision has significant implications on pleadings discipline and case‑management in commercial litigation.

Parties Involved :-

Appellant: M/S SCG Contracts (India) Pvt. Ltd. - plaintiff in the suit, a contractor claiming payment.

Respondent: K.S. Chamankar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. -defendant No.1 in the suit.

Relevant Facts :-

• On 10 March 2017 the plaintiff filed a commercial suit against the respondent for recovery of a sum of ₹ 6,94,63,114/‑. 

• The defendant was served with summons on 14 July 2017. 

• The amendments introduced by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, via provisos added to Order V R.1(1), Order VIII R.1 and Order VIII R.10 of the CPC, specified that a defendant must file the written statement within 30 days of summons, or with leave and cost within up to 120 days; beyond 120 days the right to file is forfeited and the Court shall not allow it to be taken on record. 

• In the instant case, 120 days from service of summons (14 July 2017) expired on 11 November 2017. By that date no written statement was filed. 

• Meanwhile, defendant filed an application under Order VII R.11 CPC for rejection of plaint. The order rejecting the application was passed on 5 December 2017, which also, in the said order, extended the time for filing the written statement to 15 December 2017, subject to cost payment of ₹25,000. 

• The written statement was accordingly filed on 15 December 2017. Subsequently the plaintiff applied on 6 August 2018 to strike it off the record as being filed beyond 120 days; on 24 September 2018 a Single Judge held that the 5 Dec 2017 order being final, the written statement filed on 15 Dec 2017 must be taken on record. 

• The plaintiff then filed SLP before the Supreme Court, leading to this appeal.

Procedural History:-

The suit proceeded in the Delhi High Court (original side) as a commercial suit.

The Single Judge’s order dated 24 September 2018 refused to strike off the written statement on the ground that the 5 Dec 2017 order had attained finality.

The plaintiff challenged both orders (5 Dec 2017 and 24 Sept 2018) via SLP (C) No. 103/2019 before the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court granted leave and heard the appeal (Civil Appeal No. 1638/2019).

Issue Statements

1. Whether the period of 120 days from the date of service of summons for filing the written statement in a commercial suit under Order V R.1(1), Order VIII R.1 and Order VIII R.10 CPC is mandatory (i.e., no extension beyond it) or directory (i.e., court may extend)?

2. Whether the court, by virtue of its inherent powers under Section 151 CPC or in the exercise of discretion, can accept a written statement filed beyond 120 days in a commercial suit?

3. Whether an earlier order granting extension (beyond 120 days) which has attained finality can override the statutory prohibition under the amended provisions?

Importance of these issues :-

These issues are highly significant because they address procedural certainty and case management in commercial litigation. The Commercial Courts Act was enacted to expedite commercial dispute resolution; timely filing of written statements is central to that object. If the 120‑day deadline is directory, courts may condone delays, undermining the objective of speed. On the other hand, strict mandatoriness risks harsh outcomes for defendants unable to file on time. The resolution of these issues influences how commercial suits will be managed, how far courts may exercise flexibility, and the rights of parties to defend.

Holding:-

The Supreme Court held that in a commercial suit (as defined under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015), the provisions of Order VIII R.1 and R.10 CPC (as amended) are mandatory, and the right to file a written statement is forfeited once 120 days from service of summons elapses. 

The court held that the order of the Single Judge that accepted the written statement filed on 15 December 2017 (i.e., beyond 120 days) was to be set aside, and the written statement must be taken off the record. 

The court further held that the inherent powers under Section 151 CPC cannot be used to override the express statutory prohibition of the amended CPC. 

The court observed that the earlier order of 5 Dec 2017 (granting extension) cannot validate the written statement beyond 120 days, as it is contrary to statutory mandate and public policy. 

Rationale :-

The Court noted that the amendments introduced by the Commercial Courts Act inserted a second proviso to Order V R.1(1), and similar provisos to Order VIII R.1 and R.10 CPC, which indicate that the defendant shall forfeit the right to file a written statement if not filed within 120 days of service of summons, and the court shall not allow such a written statement to be taken on record. 

The Court emphasised the legislative objective behind the amendments: to ensure speedy adjudication of commercial disputes, reduce delays, and uphold the “ease of doing business” standard. 

The Court referred to High Court decisions (e.g., Oku Tech Pvt. Ltd. v. Sangeet Agarwal and Maja Cosmetics v. Oasis Commercial Pvt. Ltd.) which held the 120‑day timeline to be mandatory in commercial suits. 

It was held that Section 151 CPC cannot be used to contravene the express statutory prohibition. The court invoked the principle that inherent powers cannot be used to override a statutory rule prescribing forfeiture of substantive right. 

Majority Opinion :-

The court, through Justice R.F. Nariman and Justice Vineet Saran, reasoned as follows:

The commercial suit filing regime under the Commercial Courts Act requires stricter timelines for written statements to serve the objective of swift resolution.

The amendment’s language is unambiguous: “on expiry of 120 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 statement to be taken on record.” (Proviso to Order VIII R.1 CPC) 

The additional proviso in Order VIII R.10 CPC states that no court shall extend the period under Rule 1 of that Order for filing of the written statement. Thus, there is a specific statutory ban on extending beyond 120 days. 

The court rejected the defense’s argument that the earlier order (5 Dec 2017) had attained finality and thus the written statement should stand. The court held that a party cannot rely on a court order which is itself inconsistent with a statutory provision, since public policy and legislative mandate override such order.

The court emphasised that procedural rules which provide for forfeiture of a right must be construed strictly, especially in commercial proceedings where legislative aim is efficiency.

Importantly, the court held that the inherently discretionary powers of the court cannot be invoked to grant extension beyond 120 days because that would render the statutory prohibition pointless.

The court further clarified that the timeline is mandatory for commercial suits; the question of directory vs mandatory may differ in non‑commercial suits, but that issue was outside the scope of this case. 

Dissenting/Concurring Opinions :-

There were no separate dissenting or concurring opinions reported in the judgment.

Statutes and Precedents Cited :-

Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015 (which amended CPC).

Order V R.1(1) CPC (proviso)

Order VIII R.1 and R.10 CPC (as amended)

Precedents such as Oku Tech, Maja Cosmetics (High Court decisions) regarding mandatory timeline. 

The court distinguished earlier decisions (e.g., Bhanu Kumar Jain v. Archana Kumar and Shaikh Salim Haji Abdul Khayumsab v. Kumar) which dealt with pre‑amendment law where discretion was available. 

Legal Precedent :-

This judgment firmly establishes that for commercial suits (i.e., those covered by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015) the 120‑day deadline for filing the written statement under the amended CPC is mandatory and non‑extendable.

It has become a landmark case frequently cited for Order VIII R.1/R.10 CPC issues, for example in future decisions distinguishing commercial and non‑commercial suits. 

The decision strengthens procedural discipline in commercial litigation and supports the objective of swift disposal of commercial suits.

For practitioners, it signals that defendants in commercial suits must vigilantly observe procedural deadlines; missing the 120‑day cut‑off may result in loss of the defence by way of written statement.

Social and Political Impact :-

The judgment is aligned with India’s push towards “ease of doing business” and reducing delays in commercial dispute resolution, thereby encouraging investment, contract enforcement and commercial certainty.

It underscores the message that commercial litigation must move at pace; it may increase pressure on parties (and courts) to adhere to deadlines, avoid dilatory tactics and expedite filings.

On the flip side, for defendants (especially smaller parties) the strictness means increased risk of being unable to present defence due to procedural non‑compliance; this may raise concerns of fairness and access to justice if deadlines are missed despite legitimate reasons.

Critical Analysis :-

The court’s decision is firm and clear, bringing much‑needed certainty to the timeline for filing written statements in commercial litigation. By interpreting the amendments strictly, the court aligns with legislative intent and supports case‑management discipline.

Strengths :-

The judgment leaves no ambiguity: the 120‑day timeline is mandatory in commercial suits, leaving less scope for ad hoc extensions and judicial discretion that could undermine speed.

It promotes transparency and procedural predictability for parties and courts.

It reinforces the importance of procedural compliance in commercial litigation, which is essential for reducing backlog and delays.

Weaknesses :-

A purely strict approach may sometimes produce harsh results (for example, if a defendant fails due to sickness, misunderstanding, or delay by the court itself). The court does not appear to allow any margin for genuine difficulties, which may raise concerns of substantive fairness.

The judgment leaves open the question of how exceptions (if any) are to be treated, or whether there is any room at all for condonation beyond 120 days in extraordinary situations. This could lead to rigid outcomes in case of unforeseen circumstances.

There might be a tension between the objective of speedy disposal and the principle of hearing both sides fairly; denying a defendant the right to file a written statement may hamper their ability to meaningfully defend.

Alternative Outcomes and Implications :-

An alternative outcome could have been that the court treated the 120‑day timeline as directory (even in commercial suits), thereby allowing courts discretion to condone delay beyond the 120 days in exceptional circumstances (subject to reasons recorded). This would preserve flexibility and fairness but at the cost of the legislative objective of strict timelines and speed. It would also risk diluting the objective of the Commercial Courts Act.

If the court had adopted a flexible approach, it might have introduced criteria for condonation (e.g., cause shown, no prejudice to plaintiff) rather than complete forfeiture. That would keep procedural rigour but allow for exceptional cases. The implication of the actual strict outcome is that defendants must be extremely proactive and institutional mechanisms must ensure no procedural slip occurs; failure may result in forfeiture of defence.

In M/S SCG Contracts (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. K.S. Chamankar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., the Supreme Court has delivered a landmark procedural ruling for commercial litigation in India. The court held that under the amended CPC (in view of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015) the deadline of 120 days from service of summons for filing the written statement is mandatory and non‑extendable in commercial suits. The court emphasised the legislative objective of speedy disposal of commercial disputes and denied the court’s power to condone delay under Section 151 CPC or order made in contravention of the statute.

On the one hand, the ruling enhances procedural certainty and supports efficiency in dispute resolution; on the other hand, it may constrain defendants who miss the deadline for genuine reasons. For law students and practitioners alike, the case is a must‑study when dealing with the interplay of Order VIII R.1/R.10 CPC, commercial litigation, and pleadings discipline.