Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Debangsu Basak, Md. Shabbar Rashidi, JJ.
Tractel Tirfor India Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Tractel International S.A.S. – Respondent
A.P.O. No. 126 of 2023 IN CS 340 OF 2000 IA NO: GA 2 OF 2024 GA 4 OF 2025
Decided On : 21-01-2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. jurisdiction and procedural history of the case. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. appellant's argument on writ service and procedural compliance. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. respondent's refutation of appellant's claims. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 4. factual background of the suit's filing and representation. (Para 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 5. framework for transfer of cases under the commercial courts act. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 6. impact of procedural misclassification on jurisdiction. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 36) |
| 7. non-lodgement of writ of summons and its implications. (Para 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43) |
| 8. consequences of adjudications lacking jurisdiction. (Para 56 , 59 , 60 , 61) |
| 9. final conclusion and order regarding the suit. (Para 72 , 73 , 74) |
JUDGMENT :
DEBANGSU BASAK, J.
| Contents |
|---|
| Scope of the Appeal |
| Contentions of the Appellant |
| Contentions of the Respondent No. 1 |
| Genesis |
| Issues |
| Analysis |
| (i) Transfer architecture under Section 15 |
| (ii) Proceeding before the Transferee Court |
| (iii) Lodgement of Writ of Summons and its failure |
| (iv) Adjudication of a matter where a Court lacks jurisdiction |
| Conclusion |
Scope of the Appeal
1. Appellant has assailed the order dated March 28, 2023 passed in IA GA 5 of 2023 in CS 340 of 2000.
2. By the impugned order dated March 28, 2023, learned Single Judge has dismissed the application of the appellant seeking extension of time to file written statement.
Contentions of the Appellant
3. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant has contended that, the writ of summons of the suit was never served upon the defendant as, the same was never lodged by the plaintiff. Therefore, there was no delay in filing the written statement. In fact, the suit is liable to and should be dismissed for not lodging the writ of summons.
4. In support of the contention that, the writ of summons was not lodged by the plaintiff in the suit, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant has drawn the attention of the Court to the order dated November 7, 2025 and the report of the office of the Sheriff, pursuant to the order dated November 7, 2025. He has pointed out that, the report of the Office of the Sheriff dated November 11, 2025 states that, no writ of summons for the suit was ever lodged. Consequently, he has contended that, the question of the time period to enter appearance by the appellant in the suit did not commence. Resultantly, the time period to file written statement has not commenced.
5. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant has contended that, the finding of the learned Single Judge that, writ of summons was lodged and served upon the appellant, is perverse in view of the materials on record.
6. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant has relied upon Chapter VIII Rules 6 and 7 of the Original Side Rule. He has contended that, the Rules of the Original Side prescribe a time limit for the purpose of lodging the writ of summons. After expiry of such period prescribed, the plaintiff has to obtain leave to lodge the writ of summons. In the present case, the plaintiff has not lodged any writ of summons nor asked for extension of time to lodge the writ of summons.
7. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant has drawn the attention of the Court to Order IX Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and contended that, in the event of non-lodgement of the writ of summons the suit is to be dismissed.
8. In support of the contentions that, the suit has to be dismissed due to non-lodgement of the writ of summons. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant has relied upon ILR 1955 Volume 1 Cal 119 ( Bengal Chand Company vs. Durga Sankar Gouri Sankar ), 1994 Volume 2 Calcutta High Court Notes 161 (State Bank of India vs. Tarit Appliances (P) Ltd. & Ors.), 2005 SCC OnLine Cal 214 (East Bengal Steam Services Ltd. Vs. East Bengal Steam Service & Engg. Works Workers Co- operative Industrial Society Ltd. & Ors.), 2007 SCC OnLine Cal 690 (Bhairu Ratan Pachisia & Or
The court established the discretion of the Commercial Court in accepting written statements in transferred suits and highlighted the applicability of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 to suits filed b....
Transfer of suits from ordinary to commercial divisions does not necessitate formal service of summons if the defendant has appeared and engaged counsel.
Mandatory provision of filing written statement within 120 days from receipt of summons in case of a commercial suit will not be applicable in case of a transferred suit.
The mandatory timeline of 120 days for filing a written statement in a commercial suit is not applicable to suits originally filed as ordinary suits and subsequently transferred as commercial suits t....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Commercial Courts Act does not exclude the application of Section 24 of the CPC to commercial disputes of a specified value, and the power....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
