Case Comment - North East Organized Floritech (P) Ltd. V. M.V. CMA CGM Cendrillon

Author: LawSphereX

Category: General Law

Published: 2026-08-23T18:42:11.720Z

Updated: 2026-08-30T07:12:22.862Z

CASE COMMENT: NORTH EAST ORGANIZED FLORITECH

(P) LTD. V. M. V. CMA CGM CENDRILLON Kali Shukla, NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad Introduction An indispensable element in the attempt to achieve natural justice is that of giving both sides a chance to present their case. Resultantly, summons are a crucial step of the judicial process. As laid down in Halsbury's Laws of India, service of summons on the defendant is of prime importance, as it is intended to inform him of the institution of the suit and to extend an opportunity to resist the same. 1 Within the domestic law of India, summons fall under Order V of the Code of Civil Procedure (“CPC”) – Issue and Service of Summons. 2 However, in an increasingly globalized world where commercial disputes are no longer contained by man-made boundaries of modern-day nation states, there is a need for a statute governing international procedural conflict.

This need is met by the Convention on The Service Abroad of Judicial and Extra Judicial Documents in Civil or Commercial matters, (“Hague Convention”). 3 Given the characteristic of sovereignty of all states combined with the desire to encourage global cooperation and trade, there are guidelines for summons under Order V Rule

25 of the CPC – Service where defendant resides out of India and has no agent, Rule 26 –

Service in foreign territory through Political Agent, and Rule 26(A) – Summonses to be sent to officer to foreign countries. Within the Hague Convention, one finds guidelines for Summons laid down in Article 10, 15, and 16. The application of law is found in an intersection of the Code of Civil Procedure and the Hague Convention. A necessary trait of every justice system is efficiency. However, with increasingly improved methods of communication, there can be a conflict between efficiency and procedure. The service of summons is an ideal judicial procedure to exemplify this conflict, one that courts are

1 Halsbury's Laws of India, Volume 7 Butterworths, paragraph (65.277).

often faced with, such as the Bombay High Court in the case of North East Organized Floritech (P) Ltd. v. M. V. CMA CGM Cendrillon, 2023. 4 Through the facts and position laid down in this case, as well as position and obiter in other related cases, this paper will explore how courts have struck a delicate balance between procedural fairness and substantive justice, both in the domestic context and particularly in international cases. Facts and Issue The case at hand, North East Organized Floritech (P) Ltd. v. M. V. CMA CGM Cendrillon, 2023 deals with the issue service of summons across transnational boundaries. The relevant facts of this case, briefly, are as follows. Floritech asserted a maritime claim causing the vessel to be arrested in Mumbai.

Subsequently, Defendant 2 – the registered owners of the vessel who were located outside of India – furnished security leading to the vessel’s release but did not file a written statement within 120 days required under Order VII Rule I of the CPC. The applicant Floritech asserted that summons had duly been served to Defendant 1 and 2, and with the passing of the time, they applied for an ex parte decree. 5 The Defendants argued that summons were not transmitted in accordance with the Hague Convention. Additionally, the summons was sent to the incorrect address. As a result, the time to file a written statement cannot be considered to have lawfully commenced and the judgment should not be set ex parte. 6 The Plaintiff denied that writ of summons was required to be served in accordance with the mode prescribed under Hague Convention or the writ of summons was sent on an incorrect address.

7 Furthermore, they argued that the warrant of arrest and furnishing of securities by the defendants constitutes a waiver of summons. 8 Analysis There are two key statements made by the court with regards to summons in this judgment that will be focused on for the purpose of this project. The first one was a response to the plaintiff’s

4 North East Organized Floritech (P) Ltd. v. M.V. CMA CGM Cendrillon, 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 3103.

5 North East Organized Floritech (P) Ltd. v. M. V. CMA CGM Cendrillon, 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 3103, para 3. argument that the warrant of arrest and furnishing of securities by the defendants constitutes a waiver of summons. To this, the judgment clearly states “... service of a warrant of arrest is not in the alternative to service of writ of summons nor is service of an order of arrest in the alternative to service of writ of summons. ”. 9 The other stance held by the court in this judgment of key importance to this case and to our analysis of it is “I do not deem it necessary to delve into the question as to whether the writ of summons by registered post was sent on the correct address of Defendant No. 2. Even if it is assumed that the service was made at the correct address, that will not render the service valid.

”10 There has been a growing trend towards substantial justice over procedural rigidity. This shift can be observed even in cases of service of summons. In the case of SBI Cards & Payments Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Rohidas Jadhav, it was held that notice delivered on WhatsApp where the attachment is opened as well, is valid. 11 Thus, the principle that the summons would not be valid even if it had been made at the correct address due to judicial procedure not having been followed is a marked deviation in guidelines regarding issuing of summons, particularly as older methods of issuing summons start becoming increasingly impractical and inefficient. This is also in contrast to the general interpretation of the Hague Convention which leans towards a flexible interpretation of procedure-based norms.

However, the rigid approach taken by Bombay HC is in line with other judgments such as Mollykutty v. Nicey Jacob. 12 One reason for this stance seems to be a wariness that accompanies courts when dealing with issues of international commercial disputes. As a general rule of Indian Public Policy, Courts do not give effect to any municipal law if it is in conflict with India’s international legal obligations. 13 The need for certainty and business-friendliness is part and parcel of judicial pronouncements on commercial matters of this character. 14 As Mittal notes, among the many disturbing trends in civil litigation in India was how slow courts were in handling civil 9 North East Organized Floritech (P) Ltd. v. M. V. CMA CGM Cendrillon, 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 3103, para 21. 10 North East Organized Floritech (P) Ltd. v. M. V. CMA CGM Cendrillon, 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 3103, para 28. disputes.

15 The 188th Report of the Law Commission of India16 proposed the Commercial Courts Act of 2015. 17 A range of measures in addition to the Act, including an amendment to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 2015 were undertaken. 18 Conflicting judgments A three judge Bench of the Kerala High Court of Judicature at Ernakulam sat over a dispute over the correct process of service to foreign jurisdictions under the Hague Convention where it held inter alia in Para 50-51 of its decision that the judgement in Mollykutty was not binding insofar as it concerned the procedure as required by the Hague Service Convention – viz. , whether the procedure in Articles 2, 5, and 8 of the Hague Service Convention.

The fundamental problem that now persists at the heart of Pillai19 was whether the strict interpretation of the requirement under the Hague Convention on Service is binding on a coordinate bench or division bench of a different High Court. As High Courts are Courts of Record under Article 227, the Constitution vests High Courts with superintendence over all courts within its jurisdiction and lower courts in that jurisdiction are bound by the decisions of the High Court. 20 However, this does not mean that a larger bench of one High Court can overrule the judgements of another High Court, irrespective of Bench strength. As held in Bajaj Alliance General Insurance v Rambha Devi,21 when a court questions an existing precedent, it must either adhere to it or refer the matter to a larger bench for reconsideration. The decision in Charuvila Philippose Sundaran Pillai*[Died] V. P. N.

Sivadasan, RFA 210/2019 (Nov 15, 2024) is not binding on other High Courts and should rightly be referred to the Apex Court for resolution – but only if the contrary finding in Pillai was erroneous in law. However, in holding that the precedent is binding in respect of the particular facts of that case, where the issue referred to the Bench in Pillai are not the same as 15 Mittal, Nachiketa. “Business Courts and Private Tribunals: Is India Ready For Global Commerce? ” Journal of the Indian Law Institute 60, no. 1 (2018): 79–96. https://www. jstor. org/stable/26826626. 16 120th Law Commission of India, 188th Report on Proposal for Cons;tu;ng of Hi-Tech Fast Track Commercial Divisions in High Courts (2003).

17 Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act,

2015. the ones framed in Mollykutty, there is no conflict between said decisions of the two High Courts. 22 Conclusion The judgment in Floritech compels a doctrinal re-evaluation of the relationship between procedural form and substantive justice in transnational litigation. By holding that even service at the correct address is invalid if procedural formalities under the Hague Convention are not strictly complied with, the Court rejects the growing global trend of purposive construction in matters of service. This approach reinstates a formalist conception of procedural due process, prioritising rule-based legitimacy over functional delivery of notice.

However, the insistence on rigid compliance, while defensible in terms of sovereignty and international obligation, risks ossifying procedure at the cost of justice, especially in an era of digital communication and increasing judicial recognition of alternative service modes. Indian courts must now confront the need to doctrinally redefine the “validity” of service not merely as a mechanical fulfilment of form, but as a meaningful assurance of notice and opportunity to be heard. This may require a principled recalibration of Order V CPC read with the Hague Convention that treats procedural rules as a means to natural justice, not an end in themselves.

22 Nutan Kumar v. IInd ADJ, AIR 2002 SC 3456.