9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (1) TMI 614X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de the decree passed on June 14, 1997, in C. A. No. 1494 of 1993 and set aside the order passed in C. A. No. 510 of 1999 dated July 16, 2001, to promote substantial cause of justice and with this observation, O. S. A. No. 263 of 2002 stands disposed of. Without expressing our opinion on the merits of the case, we remit the matter back to the learned single judge and liberty is given to both parties to adduce oral and documentary evidence to prove the claim in C. A. No. 510 of 1999 in the manner known to law. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to bear their own costs. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he demand promissory note and the alleged acknowledgment card filed in proof of service by the official liquidator and inasmuch as the Claim Application No. 1494 of 1993 by the official liquidator in seeking a decree against Visalakshi is in the nature of a suit, the company court should have adjudicated on the aspect of correctness of service and failure to do the same, has resulted in the impugned order being passed against the appellant and therefore, in the interest of justice, the present appeal has to be allowed, so that an opportunity may be given to the appellant/applicant to prove her case. In the report of the respondent/official liquidator, it is specifically, inter alia, mentioned that "the C.A. No. 1494 of 1993, was also filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pose of realising the amount ordered to be paid. According to the respondent/official liquidator, a demand notice was issued to the appellant/applicant on November 25, 1992, calling upon her to pay the dues but the appellant did not make any payment till the date of C. A. No. 1494 of 1993. In the legal notice of the appellant/applicant dated February 5, 1999, addressed to the respondent the claim of Rs. 13,640 + cost of Rs. 35 is denied and it is also mentioned that there was no necessity for the appellant either to borrow or to become a debtor and that the investment was made when the appellant/applicant was a minor, etc. At this juncture, we point out that the affidavit of service of the respondent/official liquidator's clerk Thiru. S. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s decreed as prayed for. From the foregoing discussions and in view of the fact that we have come to the conclusion that the appellant/applicant has not received the registered notice as seen from the acknowledgment card filed into the court as proof of service, we are inclined to interfere with, the order of the learned single judge passed in C. A. No. 510 of 1999 in C P. No. 88 of 1989 dated July 16, 2001, in refusing to set aside the decree passed on June 14, 1997, in C. A. No. 1494 of 1993 and set aside the order passed in C. A. No. 510 of 1999 dated July 16, 2001, to promote substantial cause of justice and with this observation, O. S. A. No. 263 of 2002 stands disposed of. Without expressing our opinion on the merits of the case, we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
