Calcutta High Court Clarifies Rules on Serving Summons to Corporations, Dismisses Plea for Filing Delay

Kolkata: In a significant ruling for commercial litigation, the Calcutta High Court has held that serving a legal summons to a company's registered office via post is a valid and sufficient method of service under the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). Justice Aniruddha Roy affirmed that this method does not require the summons to be personally received by a specific director or principal officer to be considered lawful.

The decision came in the case of MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company S. A. vs NTC Industries Limited , where the court dismissed the defendant's application to extend the time for filing its written statement, effectively rendering the suit undefended.

Background of the Case

The plaintiff, MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company, filed a commercial suit against NTC Industries Limited, seeking recovery of demurrage charges amounting to over ₹2 crore. The central dispute arose not from the claim itself, but from a procedural technicality: the precise date the legal summons was officially served on NTC Industries.

This date is critical as the CPC mandates that a defendant in a commercial suit must file their written statement within 30 days of receiving the summons, extendable to a maximum of 120 days. Failure to do so within this period results in the forfeiture of the right to file a defence.

Arguments from Both Sides

The case hinged on two separate dates of service reported by the Deputy Sheriff's office: 1. November 14, 2024: Service was effected via speed post to the registered office of NTC Industries. 2. November 22, 2024: Service was effected by hand to a principal officer of the company.

NTC Industries (Defendant) , represented by Mr. Shuvasish Sengupta, argued that the legally valid date of service was November 22, 2024. They contended that service by post on November 14 was invalid because it was not delivered to a designated person like a director or secretary, as prescribed under Order XXIX Rule 2(a) of the CPC. Counting from November 22, their application for an extension filed on March 20, 2025, would fall within the 120-day statutory limit.

MSC Mediterranean Shipping (Plaintiff) , represented by Senior Counsel Mr. Krishnaraj Thaker, countered that the service on November 14, 2024, was perfectly valid. They argued that Order XXIX Rule 2 of the CPC provides two distinct and alternative methods for serving a corporation: (a) on a director or principal officer, OR (b) by post to the registered office. Since the summons was successfully sent by post to the correct registered address, the 120-day clock started on November 14, 2024, and expired on March 13, 2025. Therefore, the defendant's application on March 20 was time-barred.

Court's Legal Analysis and Interpretation

Justice Aniruddha Roy meticulously examined the language of Order XXIX Rule 2 of the CPC, which states:

> 2. Service on corporation. – ...the summons may be served –

> (a) On the secretary, or on any director, or other principal officer of the corporation, or

> (b) By leaving it or sending it by post address to the corporation at the registered office...

The court's decision turned on the interpretation of the word "or" separating the two sub-rules. Justice Roy observed:

> "On a meaningful and harmonious reading of Rule 2 under Order XXIX of CPC... 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 clarified that if service is validly completed under one sub-rule (e.g., by post to the registered office), there is no additional requirement to comply with the other sub-rule (e.g., personal delivery to a director).

The judgment further noted that NTC Industries did not dispute that the summons was delivered to its correct registered office on November 14, 2024. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in M/s Shalimar Rope Works Ltd. , the Court reiterated that sending a summons by post to a company's registered office is presumed to be valid service unless proven otherwise.

Final Decision and Implications

Based on this interpretation, the High Court held that the writ of summons was lawfully served on NTC Industries on November 14, 2024 . Consequently, the 120-day period for filing the written statement had expired before the defendant filed its application for an extension.

The Court delivered a decisive conclusion:

> "The defendant has forfeited its right to file written statement and the written statement shall not be allowed to be taken on record... The suit, henceforth, shall appear as undefended suit."

The application for extension was dismissed, and any written statement already filed was ordered to be removed from the court's records. This ruling serves as a stark reminder to corporations about the strict timelines in commercial litigation and confirms that service of summons via post to a registered office is a robust and legally sufficient procedure.