Speed Post Service At Registered Office Triggers 120-Day Limit For Written Statement, Calcutta High Court Dismisses Extension Plea
Deekshitha Sharmile
The High Court of Calcutta Commercial Division Single Bench of Justice Aniruddha Roy has concluded that service of a writ of summons by speed post at a company’s registered office constitutes valid service under Order XXIX Rule 2(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure, thereby starting the mandatory 120-day period for filing a written statement in commercial suits. In a demurrage claim brought by an international shipping company and its affiliate against an Indian company, the Court rejected the defendant’s contention that service was effective only upon later hand delivery on a principal officer. Holding that the statutory outer limit had already expired, the Court dismissed the application for additional time, recorded forfeiture of the defendant’s right to file a written statement, and directed that the suit proceed as undefended.
The dispute arose from a commercial suit filed for recovery of alleged demurrage charges amounting to Rs. 2,03,42,338.50 against the defendant company. The plaintiffs initiated proceedings and served a writ of summons along with the plaint. The defendant contended that the summons was received on November 22, 2024, and filed its written statement within 120 days thereafter, relying on the amended provisions of Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
The defendant argued that the earlier service report dated November 14, 2024, did not establish valid service, as it was not delivered to a designated officer under Order XXIX Rule 2(a) CPC. It maintained that only the hand service effected on November 22, 2024, upon a principal officer constituted valid service. The plaintiffs opposed this, submitting that service by post at the registered office on November 14, 2024, was lawful under Order XXIX Rule 2(b) CPC. They argued that the defendant suppressed this fact and filed its application beyond the 120-day limit.
Evidence included the Deputy Sheriff’s report dated February 10, 2025, showing service by speed post on November 14, 2024, and by hand on November 22, 2024. Both parties relied on statutory provisions under Order VIII and Order XXIX CPC, citing precedents to support their respective positions.
Justice Aniruddha Roy recorded: “It is not the defendant's case that no writ of summons was served upon the defendant.” The Court stated: “On a meaningful and harmonious reading of Rule 2 under Order XXIX of CPC, it appears to this Court that, where a suit is against a corporation, as in the instant case being the defendant company, the summons may be served on its secretary or any of its directors, or any of its principal officer as provided under sub-Rule (a) thereto. Sub-Rule (b) to Rule 2 provides that the summons on defendant company can be served, inter alia, by sending it through post addressed to the defendant company at its registered office.”
The Court observed: “In between the said provisions the expression used is ‘or’. Thus, on a meaningful reading of the said two provisions laid down under sub-Rule (a) and (b), this Court finds the conditions stated therein are independent to each other and cannot be read in a conjunctive manner and those are disjunctive by their nature and expressions.”
The Court recorded: “If hand service of summons upon any designated person, as defined under sub-Rule (a) takes place, that is sufficient and no further requirement is there to avail of any of the procedure defined under sub-Rule (b) to Rule 2 under Order XXIX of CPC and vice-versa.”
The Court stated: “Once the writ of summons has been served at the registered office of the defendant company by the office of the Deputy Sheriff as would be evident from the Deputy Sheriff's report and the postal track report appended thereto showing delivery of postal article at the defendant's registered office on November 14, 2024, it is sufficient and lawful service of writ of summons on the defendant.”
The Court further observed: “When the summons has been served by post at the registered office of the defendant, it is not required to be specifically delivered to or accepted by any designated person as defined under Rule 2(a) to Order XXIX of CPC.”
The Court referred to precedent: “Sending a summons by post to the registered office of the company, unless the contrary is shown, will be presumed to be service on the company itself.” The Court recorded: “In view of the foregoing reasons and discussions, this Court is of the firm and considered view that the writ of summons was properly and lawfully served on the defendant on November 14, 2024 at its registered office.”
The Court directed: “Thus, the date of service of writ of summons should be November 14, 2024. Accordingly, the master summon having been taken out on March 21, 2025 was beyond the mandated 120 days under the amended provisions of Order VII Rule 1(a) of the Code and as such the application is not maintainable. Since, the mandated 120 days under amended Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC has expired from the date of service of writ of summons, the defendant has forfeited its right to file written statement and the written statement shall not be allowed to be taken on record.”
“In the event, any written statement is submitted by the defendant and taken on record, the same shall forthwith be taken of the file and returned to the defendant without taking any cognizance of it and the suit register and/or suit records wherever it is necessary, shall be rectified accordingly recording that there shall be no written statement of the defendant on record. The suit, henceforth, shall appear as undefended suit.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Krishnaraj Thaker, Sr. Adv.; Ms. Sneha Singhania, Adv.; Ms. Sreenita Thaker, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. Shuvasish Sengupta, Adv.; Mr. Balarko Sen, Adv.
Case Title: MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company S. A. And Anr. vs NTC Industries Limited
Case Number: IA NO. GA-COM/3/2025 In CS-COM/749/2024
Bench: Justice Aniruddha Roy
