Service at registered office meets requirements; no need for delivery to designated individuals.

JUDGMENT :

Aniruddha Roy, J.

In Re: IA NO. GA-COM/3/2025

Facts:

1. The master summons has been taken out by the defendant, inter alia, praying for direction upon the concerned department to accept the written statement by extending the time. The plaintiffs have filed the suit in the commercial division for recovery of alleged demurrage charges allegedly for a sum of Rs.2,03,42,338.50/- against the defendant along with other consequential reliefs.

2. From the statements made in the supporting affidavit it appears that the defendant has contended that the writ of summons along with the plaint appended thereto was received by the defendant on November 22, 2024 wherefrom it appears to the defendant that the plaint was presented on August 13, 2024

3. It was specified in the writ of summons that within 120 days from the date of service of writ of summons, the defendant was to file its written statement. The defendant’s case in its supporting affidavit is that the writ of summons has been received by it on November 22, 2024 and the written statement was ultimately affirmed within 120 days therefrom, as provided under the amended provision of Rule 1 (a) of Order VIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short CPC)

4. The grounds shown for not filing the written statement within the mandated 30 days under the amended provisions of Rule 1 to Order VIII of CPC are mentioned in the supporting affidavit and on the basis thereof, the instant application has been filed.

5. The parties have filed and exchanged their respective affidavits on the application.

Submissions:

6. Mr. Shuvasish Sengupta, learned counsel appearing for the defendant during his submissions referring to the averments made in sub-paragraph (f) to paragraph 3 of the affidavit-in-reply filed by the defendant submits that the plaintiffs contend that the report of the office of the Deputy Sheriff dated February 10, 2025 annexed to the affidavit of the plaintiffs shows that a postal service of writ of summons through speed post with acknowledgement due (A/D) had been effected but the report does not include any document which would suggest that the concerned department of the Deputy Sheriff had served the writ of summons by post and the same was duly received by the defendant on November 14, 2024. However, further the second part of the said report did not indicate that whether any postal acknowledgment receipt has been received by the office of the Deputy Sheriff. Learned counsel Mr. Shuvasish Sengupta submits that neither the directors nor the principal officer or any authorized person of the defendant had been served with the writ of summons along with the plaint and other documents on November 14, 2024.

7. Mr. Shuvasish Sengupta, learned counsel for the defendant then refers to the provisions laid down under Order XXIX from CPC, which deals with suit by or against corporation. Referring to sub-Rule (2) to Order XXIX of CPC, Mr. Shuvasish Sengupta submits that the law provides a specific provision that subject to any statutory provision regulating service of process, where suit is against a corporation/company, summons may by served on the secretary or any director, or other principal officer of the corporation/company or by leaving it or sending it by post addressed to the corporation/company at its registered office, or if there is no registered office then at the place where the corporation/company carries on business. He submits that on November 14, 2024, from the report of the office of the Deputy Sheriff, it appears that even if the writ of summons was served through post at the registered office of the c