Insurer got full plaint on first service. Claimed later copy missing pages. Lost defence.

Two Summons, One Missing Page, and a Limitation Trap

National Insurance Company Ltd. was sued by M/s National Building Construction India Ltd. before the Commercial Division of the Delhi High Court. The insurer received summons twice — once through a bailiff on 19th June 2017, and again by speed post on 22nd August 2017. The company claimed the speed-post copy was missing two pages. Those pages arrived later, on 27th October 2017. The question that reached the Supreme Court was simple: from which date does the clock start ticking for filing a written statement under the Commercial Courts regime?

The answer cost National Insurance its defence. The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition on 12th September 2023, leaving the insurer without a written statement on record. The stakes were existential for the defence — no written statement means no contest on merits. For the plaintiff, it meant a clear path to judgment.

What the Bailiff Delivered

The story begins on the original side of the Delhi High Court. National Building Construction India Ltd. filed a commercial suit. Summons were issued. On 19th June 2017, a bailiff served National Insurance with the complete paperbook — including the plaint. That was the first service.

Then, on 22nd August 2017, the court directed service by speed post. That copy, the insurer claimed, was missing two pages. The plaintiff supplied those pages on 27th October 2017.

National Insurance filed its written statement on 20th December 2017 — well beyond the 30-day period under the Commercial Courts Act if the clock started on 19th June 2017. The insurer argued that limitation should run from 27th October 2017, when it received the complete plaint.

The High Court's Two Rejections

The Single Judge of the Commercial Division rejected this argument. The finding was factual: the bailiff's service on 19th June 2017 was complete. The paperbook included the plaint. The missing pages in the speed-post copy were irrelevant because the first service was already effective.

National Insurance appealed. The Division Bench heard FAO(OS)(COMM) No. 281/2019 and delivered its judgment on 31st October 2019. It upheld the Single Judge. The Bench disbelieved the insurer's claim that the first service was incomplete. The finding was concurrent — both courts below had examined the evidence and concluded that the bailiff had delivered the complete paperbook.

The insurer then approached the Supreme Court by Special Leave Petition.

What Each Side Argued

National Insurance's counsel pressed a pure legal proposition: under Order V Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, service of summons must be accompanied by a copy of the plaint. Without the plaint, the service is incomplete. The starting date for limitation, they argued, runs only from the date of effective service — which means the date the defendant receives both the summons and the complete plaint.

The plaintiff, National Building Construction India Ltd., countered with the factual record. The bailiff's report showed delivery of the complete paperbook on 19th June 2017. The insurer had not challenged that report at the time. The missing pages in the speed-post copy were a separate event — they did not invalidate the first service.

The Supreme Court heard both sides. Justice Aniruddha Bose, writing for the Bench that also included Justice Bela M. Trivedi, accepted the legal proposition. Order V Rule 2 does require service of summons along with the copy of the plaint. The starting date for computing limitation for filing a written statement runs from the date of effective service, which necessarily includes receipt of the plaint.

But the Court drew a line. The question of whether the first service was complete was a factual finding. Both the Single Judge and the Division Bench had examined the evidence and concluded that the bailiff's service on 19th June 2017 was complete. The Supreme Court declined to re-appreciate that finding.

THE PLAY: If you receive summons with a complete paperbook on the first service, you cannot reset the limitation clock by claiming a later service was incomplete. The clock starts on the first effective service — and the court will look at the bailiff's report, not your convenience.

The Doctrine That Mattered

The ratio decidendi in this judgment is narrow but important. The Supreme Court held that service contemplated under Order V Rule 2 CPC implies service of summons along with a copy of the plaint. The starting date for computing limitation for filing a written statement runs from the date of effective service, which necessarily includes receipt of the plaint.

This is not new law. But the Court's application of it is instructive. The legal proposition was accepted. The factual finding was left undisturbed. The result: the insurer's written statement was treated as filed beyond the permissible time.

The Court also noted an alternative route. Even if the second service by speed post on 22nd August 2017 were treated as the starting point, the written statement was still filed beyond the permissible time. The obiter dictum suggests the petitioner's case was weak on facts irrespective of the legal proposition — both modes of computation led to the same result of delay.

Why This Matters in Practice

For advocates practising in commercial courts, this judgment is a reminder of three things.

First, the factual finding on service is often the end of the road. The Supreme Court will not re-appreciate evidence on whether a bailiff delivered a complete paperbook. If the trial court believes the bailiff's report, the defendant cannot restart the limitation clock by claiming a later service was incomplete.

Second, the Commercial Courts Act imposes strict timelines for filing written statements. The 30-day period with a possible extension of 60 days is unforgiving. Missing it means the defence is shut out. The insurer in this case lost its right to file a written statement because it waited too long to clarify the factual position.

Third, the judgment clarifies that the legal proposition under Order V Rule 2 is not a magic wand. Yes, service must include the plaint. But if the defendant receives the plaint on the first service, the clock starts ticking. The defendant cannot ignore the first service and wait for a second service that might be incomplete.

The Bottom Line

If you are served with summons and a complete plaint on the first occasion, you have 30 days to file your written statement — and you cannot extend that period by claiming a later service was incomplete.