The single-judge bench of Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Hindustan Unilever Limited Vs Emami Limited held that Order XXIX Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) does not limit the service of the summons to the registered office of the company alone. It was also opined that the Court does not have the authority to extend the stipulated 120-day deadline for submitting a written statement. For commercial disputes to be settled in a timely way, the legislative objective must be preserved and followed. The system must foster a culture of adhering to deadlines that are set forth.
Brief Facts:
The factual matrix of the case was that the writ of summons was served at the corporate office of the Defendant on 29 June 2022 and the writ of the summons along with the plaint was served at the registered office of the Defendant on 7 July 2022. Hence, there was no delay in filing the written statement and the same shall be taken on record.
Contentions of the Plaintiff:
It was contended that the period of 120 days expired on 27 October 2022 and Defendant lost the right to file the written statement. It was further contended that the copy of the written statement along with the application that was filed on 9 November 2022 is immaterial since no written statement was filed in the stipulated period.
Contentions of the Defendants:
It was contended that the service at the corporate office of Defendant is not good service and the period of 120 days shall be counted from the date of 7 July 2022 and not from 29 June 2022.
Observations of the Court:
It was observed that the legislative intent of the Order V Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is not to provide any discretion to the Court in extending the time to file the written statement beyond the period of 120 days.
The Hon’ble High Court negated the contention of the Defendant that the service at the corporate office is not good service as the office is situated within the jurisdiction of the Court and the Defendant is using the same address in filing the proceedings before the Court.
It was noted that
“Order XXIX Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 does not limit the service of the summons to the registered office of the company alone.”
It was further added by the Court that in such cases, the regular, casual, and cavalier approach is no longer acceptable. The Court does not have the authority to extend the stipulated 120-day deadline for submitting a written statement. For commercial disputes to be settled in a timely way, the legislative objective must be preserved and followed. The system must foster a culture of adhering to deadlines that are set forth.
The decision of the Court:
The Hon’ble Court forfeited the right of Defendant to file the written statement.
Case Title: Hindustan Unilever Limited Vs Emami Limited
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur
Case No: IA NO. GA/2/2022 In CS/150/2022
Advocate for the Petitioner: Advs. Mr. S. N. Mukherjee, Mr. Arunabha Deb, Mr. Soumya Roy Chowdhury, Mr. Deepan Kr. Sarkar
Advocate for the Respondent: Advs. Mr. Debnath Ghos, Mr. Mini Agarwal
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
