Order XXIX Rule 2 CPC Does Not Limit Service Of Summons To Registered Office; Service Duly Received At Corporate Office Valid: Calcutta High Court

The instant proceedings arose out of an application for taking on record written statement sought to be filed in respect of a suit for disparagement of intellectual property instituted by Hindustan Unilever Ltd. against Emami Ltd.

Within the facts of the case, summons was served upon the corporate office of Emami on June 29, 2022 with the same being served upon its registered office on July 7, 2022. Emami had thereafter served its written statement upon HUL on November 4, 2022.

Counsels for Emami contended that the 120 day period for filing of written statement under Order V Rule 1(1) CPC ought to be computed on and from the date of service of summons upon its registered office i.e., with effect from July 7, 2022 and consequently there was no delay in the filing of the written statement.

Counsels for HUL argued that upon service of the writ of summons upon Emami's corporate office on June 29, 2022, the 120 day time period for filing of written statement expired on October 27, 2022. It was also contended that the date of affirmation of written statement was immaterial for determining whether the filing of the same fell within the stipulated mandatory period of 120 days.

Upon hearing the rival contention of parties, the Single Judge Bench of Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur observed within the factual conspectus of the instant case that even as on November 4, 2022 whereon the 120 day period on and from July 7, 2022 expired as was the argued by Emami, the company had neither filed its written statement nor taken out an application for extension of time for taking the said written statement on record.

Rejecting the contentions of Emami as to the technicalities of the mode and manner of service of summons, the Court held :

“There is no merit in the contention that service of the summons at the corporate office of the defendant is not good service. In this case, the writ of summons was served at the corporate office of the defendant. This office is situated within the jurisdiction of the Court. Significantly, in proceedings pending before this Court, the defendant has itself admitted that it is carrying on business from this office and has been using the said address for filing of proceedings before this Court. … The defendant has also disclosed documents received from the Office of the Sheriff at Calcutta at the aforesaid address, which is the corporate office of the defendant. This demonstrates receipt of the writ of summons.”

Noting that service of summons upon Emami's corporate office was valid in terms of Order XXIX Rule 2 of CPC, which did not contemplate limiting the service of summons only upon the registered office of a company party to the suit proceedings, the Court further held:

“I also find that service at the corporate office of the company is valid and good service when the summons alongwith the plaint have been duly received at such office. 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.”

As regards the technical considerations of the mode of service as contemplated within Section 20 of the Companies Act, 2013, the Court held:

“There is also nothing in section 20 of the Companies Act, 2013 which limits the mode of service. The provision as the words indicate is only an enabling provision as to the manner and mode whereby service is effected on a company or a corporation. (Parasrampuria Systhetics Limited v. Shankar Prasad (2003) 69 DRT 53). In any event, this argument of the defendant is academic since the defendant has admittedly failed to file the Written Statement even within the period of 120 days from the date of receipt of summons even at the registered office of the company. The summons to this application was taken out only on November 9, 2022. Thus, the right of the defendant to file the Written Statement stood forfeited.”

The Court accordingly rejected the application for taking the Defendant’s written statement on record.

Case: Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v. Emami Ltd.

Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 43

Date: 07.02.2023