The Calcutta High Court has affirmed that in commercial suits where defendants forfeit the right to file a written statement, they cannot later raise unpleaded defenses to resist summary judgment, even when disputing documentary evidence of debt. The judgment underscores the procedural rigour required under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, and reinforces that confirmed account statements, absent fraud or coercion, constitute conclusive evidence of liability.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The plaintiff, De Converter India Private Limited, filed a commercial suit against the defendants, La Chemico Pvt Ltd and others, seeking recovery of unpaid dues for goods supplied. The plaintiff claimed a principal amount of Rs. 34,62,672/- and accrued interest, arising from a series of transactions conducted under an oral agreement. The defendants failed to file a written statement, rendering the suit undefended under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Key Facts
- The plaintiff supplied goods to the defendants between 2020 and January 2022, raising 20 invoices totaling Rs. 96,33,890/- (pages 35-54 of the application)
- The defendants made partial payments totaling Rs. 61,71,218/-, with the last payment made on April 18, 2023
- A joint ledger statement dated September 3, 2022 (Annexure-E, page 58) was signed by both parties, confirming a closing balance of Rs. 35,22,672/- due to the plaintiff
- The plaintiff issued a legal notice on July 4, 2024, demanding Rs. 34,62,672/-
- The defendants replied on July 25, 2024, denying liability without specifying defects, quantities, or supporting evidence
- The plaintiff filed IA No. GA-COM/1/2025 seeking summary judgment under Order XIII-A CPC
Procedural History
- 2020-2022: Goods supplied and invoices raised
- September 3, 2022: Joint confirmation of account executed
- April 18, 2023: Last payment made by defendants
- July 4, 2024: Legal notice issued by plaintiff
- July 25, 2024: Defendants’ reply denying liability
- January 2025: Civil Suit CS-COM/50/2025 filed
- April 16, 2026: Hearing concluded; judgment delivered
The Parties' Positions
Plaintiff: Asserted that the confirmed account statement dated September 3, 2022, was a clear, contemporaneous admission of liability. No objection was raised at the time of signing. The defendants’ subsequent allegations of defective supply were unsubstantiated, untimely, and not pleaded in any written statement.
Defendants: Claimed the account confirmation was fabricated, citing discrepancies in company seals. Alleged defective supply and delayed delivery occurred in 2020-2021, supported by internal documents. Accused the plaintiff of suppressing material purchase orders and committing fraud on the court.
Relief Sought
The plaintiff sought summary judgment for:
- Principal amount of Rs. 34,62,672/-
- Interest at a judicial rate from April 19, 2023, until realization
- Dismissal of the defendants’ opposition
- Decree in favor of the plaintiff
The Legal Issue
Can a defendant who has forfeited the right to file a written statement in a commercial suit rely on unpleaded defenses, including allegations of document fabrication and suppressed evidence, to resist an application for summary judgment under Order XIII-A of the CPC?
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
The plaintiff’s counsel argued that Order XIII-A CPC permits summary judgment where the defendant has no real prospect of success. The signed account confirmation dated September 3, 2022, constituted an unequivocal admission of liability. Any prior complaints about quality or delivery were superseded by this subsequent acknowledgment. The defendants’ failure to file a written statement barred them from raising new defenses. The allegations of fraud and suppression were speculative and unsupported by admissible evidence.
For the Respondent/State
The defendants’ counsel contended that the account confirmation was forged, citing inconsistent seals on documents. They relied on purchase orders dated 2020-2021 and internal records of defective supply to assert a triable issue. They argued that the plaintiff’s failure to disclose these documents amounted to fraud under S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath. They further cited Madhusri Konar v. New Central Book Agency to argue that a disputed document cannot form the basis of summary judgment.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the interplay between procedural forfeiture under the CPC and the substantive requirements of Order XIII-A. It held that the defendants’ failure to file a written statement was not a mere technical lapse but a statutory forfeiture under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, which mandates expeditious resolution of commercial disputes.
"The defendants cannot set up any defense at present, in absence of its written statement. A defense unless proved in the trial cannot sustain in law. Therefore, in absence of any defense being taken there is no question of proving any defense."
The Court rejected the defendants’ claim of document fabrication, noting that allegations of forgery require specific pleading and evidence, neither of which were available given the absence of a written statement. The seal discrepancy argument was deemed speculative and insufficient to raise a triable issue.
The Court distinguished S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu, where suppression of an undisputed document was held to be fraud. Here, the documents allegedly suppressed were not admitted or authenticated, and the defendants had no standing to raise them post-forfeiture.
The Court also distinguished Madhusri Konar, where a genuine dispute over a document existed and the defendant had filed a written statement. In this case, the defendants had no procedural right to advance such a dispute.
The Court emphasized that Order XIII-A is designed to prevent dilatory tactics. The confirmed account statement, signed by both parties, stood unchallenged at the time of execution. Subsequent denials, unsupported by contemporaneous evidence, were deemed illusory.
The Verdict
The plaintiff succeeded. The Court granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff against defendant no. 1 for a principal sum of Rs. 34,62,672/-. Interest was awarded at 6% per annum from April 19, 2023, until full payment. The civil suit CS-COM/50/2025 was decreed and disposed of. The application IA No. GA-COM/1/2025 was allowed without costs. The decree was directed to be drawn up expeditiously.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Procedural Default Bars Substantive Defense
- Practitioners must file written statements within the stipulated time in commercial suits; failure results in permanent forfeiture of the right to raise unpleaded defenses
- Allegations of fraud, forgery, or suppression cannot be raised for the first time in opposition to a summary judgment application without a written statement
- Courts will treat confirmed account statements as conclusive unless fraud or coercion is pleaded and substantiated at the pleading stage
Documentary Admissions Trump Post-Hoc Denials
- A signed balance confirmation executed after disputes arose operates as a novation or waiver of prior claims
- Any prior complaints about quality or delivery are legally irrelevant if subsequently acknowledged and settled in writing
- In commercial litigation, contemporaneous documentation carries greater weight than belated affidavits
Summary Judgment Is a Powerful Tool in Commercial Litigation
- Order XIII-A CPC is not an exception but a norm in commercial disputes under the CC Act, 2015
- Plaintiffs with clear documentary evidence and no written defense can secure swift adjudication
- Defendants must act early: failure to plead = failure to prove
- Courts will not entertain speculative or afterthought defenses when procedural compliance has been abandoned
