9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (9) TMI 303X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he official liquidator, Mr. B.N. Nayyar, contended that it was a proper service and the objection raised by this court is not sustainable. According to him, the Original Side Rules of this High Court are not applicable to the proceedings pending before the company court. The company court has to follow the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 (hereinafter called "the Companies Rules"), or at best the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, but by no stretch of imagination the provisions of the Original Side Rules of the High Court can be attracted to the proceedings before the company court. In order to strengthen his arguments, Mr. B.N. Nayyar, Senior Standing Counsel for the official liquidator, contended that under sub-rule 2(5) of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts original civil jurisdiction. He, therefore, contended that the company court does not fall under the definition of the original civil jurisdiction. No rigid rules have been laid down for company court. Its rules are based on equity and principles of natural justice. Under the Companies Rules no provisions are provided for the evidencing of the affixation by one witness. In the absence of any specific rule in this regard we can look to the Code for assistance as envisaged under rule 6. Rule 6 of the Companies Rules reads as under: "Save as provided by the Act or by these rules the practice and procedure of the court and the provisions of the Code so far as applicable " According to Mr. Nayyar, once it is established that the Compan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... court nor the Deputy Registrar imposed any condition that the affixation should be evidenced by one witness. In the absence of any such order, the process server's affixing the summons at the last known address of the respondent without being evidenced by any witness will not invalidate the service by way of affixation as observed by this court. Mr. Nayyar went to the extent of contending that even the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, are only directory and not mandatory. This was so held by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Punjab Finance P. Ltd. v. Malhara Singh ( No. 1 ) [1975] 45 Comp. Cas.254 and by the Bombay High Court in the case of Amba Tannin and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Official Liquidator, High Court, Bom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owing whether it ought to have been evidenced by one witness, we have to fall back on the provisions of rule 17 of Order 5, which does not lay down that if the serving officer does not get the affixation witnessed from any witness then such affixation will be ineffective. On the contrary the word "if any" used in rule 17 of Order 5 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, clearly shows that the Legislature had in mind that circumstances can arise when it will be difficult for the serving officer to find a witness. In such an eventuality, the affixation done without being evidenced by any witness will not be declared ineffective or bad in law. Unless specifically ordered otherwise the service effected by way of affixation on the respondent even wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
