Calcutta High Court: Written Statements Beyond 120 Days Not Allowed; Postal Service at Registered Office Valid Under CPC
Court rules strict compliance with Commercial Courts Act timelines; company forfeits right to defend suit
Justice Aniruddha Roy affirms service by speed post at registered office as valid under Order XXIX Rule 2 CPC
By Our Legal Correspondent
New Delhi: November 27, 2025:
The Calcutta High Court has delivered a significant ruling that strengthens the strict timelines under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, holding that a company cannot file a written statement beyond the statutory 120-day period once summons have been validly served. The court also clarified that service of summons by speed post at a company’s registered office constitutes valid service under the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).
Also Read: Supreme Court Orders Nationwide Scrutiny of Private and Deemed Universities in India
The Case
The matter arose in a commercial dispute where MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company S.A. and another party filed a suit against NTC Industries Limited over demurrage claims. The defendant company sought an extension of time to file its written statement, arguing that the summons had not been properly served.
NTC Industries contended that although the postal records showed delivery of summons at its registered office, there was no proof that the summons had been received by a director, secretary, or principal officer, as required under Order XXIX Rule 2 CPC.
Court’s Observations
Justice Aniruddha Roy rejected the company’s arguments, ruling that:
- Service by speed post at the registered office is valid service under Order XXIX Rule 2(b) CPC.
- Once summons is served, the 120-day deadline for filing a written statement begins.
- The statutory timeline under the Commercial Courts Act is mandatory and cannot be extended.
- Failure to file within 120 days results in forfeiture of the right to defend, and the suit proceeds as undefended.
Also Read: Supreme Court Empowers Appellate Courts to Grant Interim Relief Even After Trial Court Dismissal
The court emphasised that the legislative intent behind the Commercial Courts Act is to ensure speedy resolution of commercial disputes, and allowing extensions beyond 120 days would defeat this purpose.
Importance of the Ruling
This judgment reinforces two critical principles:
- Strict timelines in commercial litigation: Written statements must be filed within 120 days of valid service of summons.
- Validity of postal service: Delivery of summons at a company’s registered office by speed post is sufficient, even if not personally received by a director or officer.
Legal experts note that the ruling will prevent companies from using technicalities to delay proceedings, thereby strengthening the efficiency of commercial courts.
Broader Legal Context
The ruling aligns with earlier judgments of the Supreme Court and other High Courts, which have consistently held that:
- The 120-day limit under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC (as amended for commercial disputes) is mandatory.
- Courts cannot condone delays beyond this period.
- Service at the registered office is deemed valid service, as the registered office represents the company’s legal presence.
For instance, in SCG Contracts India Pvt Ltd v. K.S. Chamankar Infrastructure Pvt Ltd (2019), the Supreme Court held that the 120-day timeline is non-negotiable in commercial suits.
Impact on Businesses
The ruling has major implications for corporate litigation:
- Companies must ensure prompt response to summons served at their registered offices.
- Delays in filing written statements can result in loss of defence rights, leaving suits undefended.
- Legal departments must strengthen compliance mechanisms to avoid missing deadlines.
Industry observers believe this will push businesses to adopt better litigation management practices, reducing unnecessary delays in commercial disputes.
Expert Opinions
- Lawyers: Many welcomed the ruling, saying it upholds the spirit of the Commercial Courts Act.
- Corporate counsel: Expressed concern that strict timelines may disadvantage companies in complex disputes but acknowledged the need for discipline.
- Academics: Noted that the judgment balances efficiency with fairness, as companies are deemed to have notice once summons reach their registered office.
Public Interest
For litigants, the ruling ensures that commercial disputes are resolved faster. Plaintiffs will no longer face prolonged delays due to defendants exploiting procedural loopholes.
The judgment also strengthens confidence in India’s commercial courts, which were established to provide speedy and efficient resolution of high-value disputes.
Also Read: CBI Busts ₹1 Crore Bribery Racket in Jaipur ITAT: Judicial Member, Advocate Among Arrested
Looking Ahead
The Calcutta High Court’s ruling is expected to serve as a precedent for similar cases across India. It sends a clear message that:
- Deadlines matter in commercial litigation.
- Registered office service is sufficient for companies.
- Delays will not be condoned, even if defendants claim lack of personal receipt.
Legal experts predict that more companies will now adopt digital monitoring of summons and notices, ensuring timely responses.
Conclusion
The Calcutta High Court’s decision rejecting a written statement filed beyond 120 days and affirming postal service at the registered office as valid under CPC is a landmark in commercial litigation. By enforcing strict timelines and clarifying service rules, the court has reinforced the efficiency, discipline, and accountability of India’s commercial courts.
Also Read: Supreme Court Warns: Reversing Our Own Orders Weakens Judicial Authority
For businesses, the ruling is a reminder that litigation management must be proactive. For litigants, it is a reassurance that justice will not be delayed by procedural tactics.
Keywords for Faster Searches (Google + ChatGPT)
- Calcutta High Court written statement 120 days
- CPC Order XXIX Rule 2 postal service
- Commercial Courts Act strict timelines India
- NTC Industries vs MSC Mediterranean Shipping case
- Calcutta HC rejects extension written statement
- Service of summons registered office valid CPC
- 120-day deadline commercial suits India
- Calcutta HC commercial litigation ruling 2025
- Written statement forfeiture commercial disputes
- Speed post summons validity Calcutta High Court
Also Read: ED Arrests WinZO Founders in ₹523 Crore Money Laundering Case
Also Read: Haryana RERA Orders Emaar MGF to Refund Homebuyers After 4-Year Delay in Possession
Also Read: Supreme Court Flags Motor Insurance Crisis: 56% Vehicles Uninsured, Seeks Govt and IRDAI Action Plan
Also Read: GST Department Can Freeze Bank Accounts Over Suspected Tax Evasion: Know the Triggers and Remedies