Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Bom) 859

2026 BHC-AS 20323
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
N.J. JAMADAR, J.
I K Marine Agencies Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
Tata Steel Ltd. - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 3514 of 2026 With Writ Petition No. 11322 of 2025
Decided On : 28-04-2026
Advocates Appeared :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Vaibhav Ugle i/by Mr. Vikas Somawanshi, Mr. Prashant Mahajan, Mr. Aditya Shinde, Ms. Kalpana Pandey, Mr. Mangesh M. Patel.
For the Respondent : Mr. Bhushan Deshmukh with Mr. H.N. Vakil, Mr. Samkit Shah, Mr. Farhad Vakil i/by Mull and Mulla and Craigie Blunt and Caroe.

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Vaibhav Ugle i/by Mr. Vikas Somawanshi, Mr. Prashant Mahajan, Mr. Aditya Shinde, Ms. Kalpana Pandey, Mr. Mangesh M. Patel
For the Respondents: Mr. Bhushan Deshmukh with Mr. H.N.Vakil, Mr. Samkit Shah, Mr. Farhad Vakil i/by Mull and Mulla and Craigie Blunt and Caroe

In commercial suits, written statements within 120 days from valid summons service (with plaint copy) must be accepted; extensions lean towards condonation if justified; procedural timelines subservient to substantial justice.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order V Rule 1, Order VIII Rules 1 & 10 (as amended and applicable to Commercial Courts under Commercial Courts Act, 2015) - Summons issuance requires defendant to file written statement within 30 days from service; extendable by court for recorded reasons up to 120 days maximum; beyond 120 days, right forfeited, court precluded from taking on record - Service of summons must accompany copy of plaint and documents to trigger timeline, mere summons insufficient. (Paras 20-22, 30-32)

(B) Extension of time in commercial suits - Beyond initial 30 days, court shall allow filing up to 120 days with recorded reasons and costs; condonation not automatic or mechanical but court leans in favour within window if justified - Procedural rigour tempered by equity; technicalities yield to substantial justice preventing denial of defence. (Paras 33-45)

Facts of the case:
Commercial suit for recovery of charges. Summons service via registered post disputed due to lack of plaint copy proof (low article weight); bailiff service on one defendant; appearance date for other. Extensions sought and granted without specific dates; presiding officer absent on subsequent dates; written statements filed within 120 days from effective service/appearance, taken on record. Plaintiff applications to strike off allowed by lower court.

Findings of Court:
Effective service from bailiff date or appearance; written statements within 120 days; prior extensions and court absences justify acceptance without separate condonation application.

Issues: Proper date of summons service; validity of extensions without precise dates or condonation applications; mandatory timelines' application preventing written statements' acceptance.

Ratio Decidendi: Where written statements filed within 120 days from valid service including plaint, and substantial compliance shown via extensions and court circumstances, lower court erred in striking off; procedural provisions interpreted to advance justice over rigidity.

Result: Writ petitions allowed; impugned order quashed; written statements directed to be taken on record; suit to proceed.

Table of Content
1. writ petitions challenge order striking defendants' written statements (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. defendants argue timely ws post-service and extensions (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
3. plaintiff demands strict 120-day ws filing enforcement (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
4. cpc mandates absolute 120-day ws limit commercially (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
5. def1 summons served on court appearance date (Para 23 , 24 , 25)
6. summons requires plaint copy for valid service (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32)
7. extensions need reasons; condone within 120 days (Para 33 , 34 , 35 , 36)
8. ws filed timely despite extension formalities (Para 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41)
9. substantive justice trumps procedural rigidity (Para 42 , 43 , 44 , 45)
10. quash order; restore defendants' written statements (Para 46)

JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, and, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, heard finally.

2. These Petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, take exception to a common order dated 25 July 2025 passed by the learned District Judge, presiding over the Commercial Court at Panvel, whereby the applications (Exh.22 and 24) filed by the Respondent – Plaintiff for taking off the written statements filed by Defendant Nos.1 and 2 – Petitioners in the respective Petitions, came to be allowed and the written statements (Exhs. 18 and 19) filed by Defendant Nos.1 and 2, respectively, were ordered to be taken off the record.

3. The Petitions arise in the backdrop of the following facts :

3.1 Respondent – Plaintiff is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1882. Defendant No.1 is a shipping Company. Defendant No.2 is engaged in the business of providing logistic related services in the shipping industry. The Respondent claimed that it had granted licence to Defendant No.1 to use the land and stockyard near Bima Complex, Kalamboli, Navi Mumbai (the suit property). Defendant No.1 inducted Defendant No.2 as a co-licencee.

3.2 In the wake of the disputes, the Respondent instituted a Commercial Suit seeking recovery of various amounts due and payable by the Defendants, jointly and severally, to the Plaintiff towards the statutory, utility and other charges. It was claimed that, certain amounts were payable by the Defendants individually.

3.3 As summons could not be served on 10 May 2024, the Plaintiff made an application for service of summons through registered post. The Plaintiff claims, the writ of summons was served on Defendant No.1 by registered post on 3 August 2024. Whereas, the summons was served on Defendant No.2 on 24 July 2024. The summons was also served on Defendant No.2 by the Bailiff on 21 August 2024. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 appeared before the Commercial Court on 29 August 2024.

3.4 Defendant No.1 filed an application seeking time for filing written statement. Defendant No.2 did not file any application. Suit stood adjourned to 26 September 2024. On that day, both Defendant Nos.1 and 2 filed applications seeking further time to file written statement.

3.5 The learned Judge was persuaded to grant time. It appears, thereafter, Defendant Nos.1 and 2 did not file applications seeking further time to file written statement, and, eventually, on 16 December 2024 both Defendant Nos.1 and 2 filed their respective written statements. Those written statements were taken on record.

3.6 The Respondent – Plaintiff filed applications (Exhs.22 and 24) seeking directions to take the written statements off the record and proceed with the suit ex-parte as the written statements were not filed within the statutory period.

3.7 The Petitioners resisted the applications.

3.8 By the impugned common order, learned District Judge was persuaded to allow the applications and take the written statements off the record. Learned District Judge was of the view that the summons could be deemed to have been served on Defendant No.1 on 29 August 2024. Qua Defendant No.2, there was ampl

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Bom) 859

In commercial suits, written statements within 120 days from valid summons service (with plaint copy) must be accepted; extensions lean towards condonation if justified; procedural timelines subservient to substantial justice.

Cases Referred (7)