1968 (5) TMI 43 - HC - Companies Law

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of service of summons on the petitioner.
2. Application for setting aside ex parte decree.
3. Interpretation of Order 29, rule 2(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure.
4. Application of Order 5, rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
5. Question of limitation regarding the application.

Validity of service of summons on the petitioner:
The petitioner, a company, challenged the service of summons in a money suit filed against it. The courts found that summons was duly served in accordance with Order 29, rule 2(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The bailiff testified to serving the summons at the registered office of the petitioner. The courts concluded that the service was valid, rejecting the petitioner's claim of lack of knowledge and dismissing the application to set aside the ex parte decree.

Application for setting aside ex parte decree:
The petitioner filed an application under Order IX, rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the ex parte decree. The petitioner alleged lack of proper service of summons and delayed knowledge of the suit. However, both lower courts held that the application was time-barred as it was not filed within thirty days of the decree. The courts also found the petitioner's claim of acquiring knowledge belatedly to be unsubstantiated.

Interpretation of Order 29, rule 2(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure:
The petitioner argued that Order 29, rule 2(b) applied only to corporations, not companies, and thus the service of summons was invalid. However, the court clarified that the term "corporation" in the Code referred to companies registered under the Indian Companies Act. As the petitioner was a company incorporated under the Act, the service of summons at its registered office was deemed valid.

Application of Order 5, rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure:
The petitioner contended that the court's order for service of summons by registered post implied a lack of proper service. However, the court explained that Order 5, rule 20A, concerning unserved summons, was not applicable in this case. The court's direction for registered post service was an additional mode under Order 5, rule 10, which was permissive, not mandatory.

Question of limitation regarding the application:
The courts found that the petitioner's claimed date of knowledge was inaccurate, leading to the application being time-barred. The courts held that determining the actual date of knowledge was unnecessary when the asserted date was proven wrong. Consequently, the application was dismissed as barred by time, and the court upheld the lower courts' decision.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the petition, stating that no interference was warranted. The dismissal was without costs, affirming the lower courts' findings on the validity of service, time limitation, and interpretation of relevant procedural rules.