The Supreme Court has declined to interfere with an order passed by the Calcutta High Court in a commercial dispute between Janardan Nirman Private Limited and Gannon Dunkerley and Co. Ltd., while directing the Commercial Court to take up and dispose of the pending counterclaim expeditiously.
The Bench comprising Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe was hearing a Special Leave Petition filed by Janardan Nirman Private Limited against the Calcutta High Court’s order dated 1 August 2025. The delay in filing the petition was condoned at the outset, but after hearing both sides, the Court observed that no case for interference was made out and dismissed the SLP along with all pending applications.
The case arose from proceedings where a commercial money suit filed by the respondent was dismissed for default, while a counterclaim filed by the petitioner-defendant survived as a cross-suit under Order VIII Rule 6A and Rule 6D of the Code of Civil Procedure. The controversy centred on whether the counterclaim could proceed ex parte and whether the order vacating the ex parte hearing called for supervisory interference under Article 227 of the Constitution.
The Calcutta High Court held that a counterclaim stands independent of the dismissal of the main suit and procedural provisions under Order IX permit proceedings to continue in the absence of a party, subject to showing sufficient cause. Finding no perversity or jurisdictional error in the Commercial Court’s approach and emphasising adjudication on merits, the High Court refused to interfere and directed continuation of the counterclaim proceedings, which ultimately led to the challenge before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court observed that it was not inclined to interfere with the impugned order of the High Court. However, taking note of the pendency of the counterclaim before the Commercial Court, the Bench issued a direction that the counterclaim be taken up and disposed of as expeditiously as possible.
With these observations, the Special Leave Petition was dismissed, and all accompanying interlocutory applications were also disposed of.
Appearances
Petitioner- Mr. Abir Phukan, Adv. Mr. V. Shyamohan, Adv. Ms. Sradhaxna Mudrika, Adv. Ms. Anshika Bajpai, Adv. Ms. Vrinda Goel, Adv. M/S. Kmnp Law Aor, AOR
Respondents- Mr. Swarnendu Chatterjee, AOR Mr. Shubhojyoti Dutta, Adv. Mr. Deb Kumar Deashi, Adv. Ms. Anusuya Basu Dutta, Adv. Mr. Joydeep De, Adv. Ms. Deepakshi Garg, Adv. Mr. Sayan Daw, Adv. Mr. Ali Abbas Masoodi, Adv.
