Gratuity Is a Property Right, Not a Charity: MP High Court Upholds Gratuity Claims of Long-Term Contract Workers Seized Vehicles Must Not Be Left to Rot in Open Yards: Madras High Court Invokes Article 21, Orders Release of Vehicle Seized in Illegal Quarrying Case Even After Talaq And A Settlement, A Divorced Muslim Woman Can Claim Maintenance Under Section 125 CRPC: Kerala High Court Bail Cannot Be Withheld as Punishment: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail to Govt Official in ₹200 Cr. Scholarship Scam Citing Delay and Article 21 Violation Custodial Interrogation Necessary in Serious Economic Offences: Delhi High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail in ₹1.91 Cr Housing Scam Specific Relief Act | Readiness and Willingness Must Be Real and Continuous — Plaintiffs Cannot Withhold Funds and Blame the Seller: Bombay High Court Even If Claim Is Styled Under Section 163A, It Can Be Treated Under Section 166 If Negligence Is Pleaded And Higher Compensation Is Claimed: Supreme Court When Cheating Flows from One Criminal Conspiracy, the Law Does Not Demand 1852 FIRs: Supreme Court Upholds Single FIR in Multi-Crore Cheating Case Initiating Multiple FIRs on Same Facts is Impermissible: Supreme Court Quashes Parallel FIRs and Grants Bail Protection in Refund Case Not Every Middleman Is a Trafficker: Gujarat High Court Grants Bail in International Cyber Trafficking Case, Cites Absence of Mens Rea Stay in One Corner Freezes the Whole Map: Madras High Court Upholds Validity of Decades-Old Land Acquisition Despite 11-Year Delay in Award Parole Once Granted Cannot Be Made Illusory by Imposing Impossible Conditions: Rajasthan High Court Declares Mechanical Surety Requirement for Indigent Convicts Unconstitutional Once Acquisition Is Complete, Title Disputes Fall Outside Civil Court Jurisdiction: Madhya Pradesh High Court No Appeal Lies Against Lok Adalat Compromise Decree Even on Grounds of Fraud: Orissa High Court Declares First Appeal Not Maintainable Sanction to Prosecute Under UAPA Cannot Be a Mechanical Act: Supreme Court Quashes Jharkhand Government’s Third-Time Sanction Without New Evidence FIRs in Corruption Cases Cannot Be Quashed on Hyper-Technical Grounds of Police Station Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Restores ACB Investigations Quashed by Andhra Pradesh High Court Mere Completion of Ayurvedic Nursing Training Does Not Confer Right to Appointment: Supreme Court Rejects Legitimate Expectation Claim by Trainees University’s Error Can’t Cost a Student Her Future: Supreme Court Directs Manav Bharti University to Issue Withheld Degree and Marksheets Due to Clerical Mistake Disciplinary Exoneration Cannot Shield Public Servant from Criminal Trial in Corruption Cases: Supreme Court Customs Tariff Act | ‘End Use’ and ‘Common Parlance’ Tests Cannot Override Statutory Context: Supreme Court Classifies Mushroom Shelves as ‘Aluminium Structures’ Supreme Court Allows PIL Against Limited Maternity Benefits for Adoptive Mothers to Continue Under New Social Security Code Liberty Cannot Wait for Endless Trials: Supreme Court Grants Bail to Wadhawan Brothers in ₹57,000 Crore DHFL Scam Co-Sharer Has Superior Right of Pre-emption Even If Land Is Gair Mumkin Bara: Punjab & Haryana High Court Neighbours Cannot Be Prosecuted Under Section 498A IPC Merely For Alleged Instigation: Karnataka High Court No Party Has a Right to Demand a Local Commissioner — It's Purely the Court’s Discretion: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Civil Revision

“Service of Summons Should Include a Copy of the Plaint,” Supreme Court Dismisses National Insurance Company Ltd.’s Petition on Limitation Period

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


New Delhi, September 12, 2023 – In a significant ruling today, the Supreme Court of India clarified the requirements for the service of summons in civil suits. The apex court upheld that the service of summons “should include a copy of the plaint,” based on the Code of Civil Procedure, Order V Rule 2. The judgement came in the case between National Insurance Company Ltd. And M/S National Building Construction India Ltd & Others.

In the matter, National Insurance Company Ltd. Had petitioned the Supreme Court over the effective date for computing the limitation period for filing a written statement in a suit before the Delhi High Court, Commercial Division. Two modes of service were scrutinized: one through the bailiff and the other through speed post.

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aniruddha Bose and Hon’ble Ms. Justice Bela M. Trivedi presided over the case. “We accept the petitioner’s argument on the legal proposition that service contemplated in terms of Order V Rule 2 of the Code would imply service of summons along with the copy of the plaint,” the bench stated in the judgement.

However, the Court did not interfere with the High Court’s factual determination, mentioning, “It is essentially a question of fact, which we do not want to reappreciate at this stage.” As a result, the petition filed by National Insurance Company Ltd. Was dismissed, and any pending applications were also disposed of.

The judgement clarifies the rules around the service of summons and underlines the importance of complying with procedural requirements in civil suits. Legal experts say the ruling could serve as a crucial reference for similar cases in the future.

Date of Decision-12-09-2023

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. vs M/S NATIONAL BUILDING CONSTRUCTION INDIA LTD. & ORS.

Latest Legal News