Firoz A. Nadiadwala v. Anil Dhanraj Jethani
Discusses service of summons, applicability of Commercial Courts Act to transferred suits, and interpretation of procedural rules.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2025:BHC-OS:8573
Decision Date: 09-06-2025
List of Laws
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Commercial Courts Act, 2015; Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1980; The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: The judgment discusses the requirement of serving a writ of summons as per the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It analyzes whether the amended provisions of the CPC regarding service of summons apply to transferred suits. The judgment refers to Order V of the Code, specifically in the context of whether the defendant had notice of the date of hearing and sufficient time to appear and answer the claim. It also mentions that Rule 84 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules shows the circumstances in which a writ of summons is seen to be served, referencing the manner provided by the Code of Civil Procedure. The court considered the legal position under the amended CPC regarding whether the defendant was actually served with the summons in accordance with the procedure laid down in Order 5 of the Code.
- Commercial Courts Act, 2015: The judgment extensively discusses the applicability of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, to suits originally filed as regular suits and subsequently converted to commercial suits. It analyzes Section 15 of the Act, particularly Section 15(4), which deals with the power of the Commercial Division to fix timelines for filing written statements in transferred suits. The judgment considers whether the mandatory timeline of 120 days for filing a written statement applies to transferred suits under Section 15(4). It also discusses whether the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act dealing with transferred suits, as prescribed in Section 15, apply irrespective of whether a writ of summons was served or not. The court refers to Section 15(4) as a provision specifically introduced by the legislature while drafting the Commercial Courts Act.
- Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1980: The judgment refers to Rule 87 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1980, which deals with suits to be placed on board for dismissal if summons are not served within six months. It also mentions Rule 84 of the same rules, which pertains to the proof of service of summons and states that unless the Court shall otherwise order, the service of a Summons to appear and answer shall be proved by the vakalatnama having been filed or when no vakalatnama has been filed, by evidence showing that the Summons was served in the manner provided by the Code of Civil Procedure.
- The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881: The judgment mentions Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, in the context of summonses issued by the 18th Additional Civil Judge, ACJM, Rajkot, calling upon the Applicant to answer the charge under that section.
🔒 For Members Only