service of notice on the respondent - Rule 2 (b) Order XXIX of Code of Civil Procedure 1908, service by leaving it or sending it by post addressed to the corporation at the registered office, or if there is no registered office then at the place where the corporation carries on business is self sufficient service, is permitted by law.
Rule 2 Order XXIX of Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is extracted as hereunder:- Rule 2 Order XXIX of Code of Civil Procedure 1908 "Service on corporation" Subject to any statutory provision regulating service of process, where the suit is against a corporation, the summons may be served. 2 (a) on the secretary, or on any director, or other principal officer of the corporation, (or) (b) by leaving it or sending it by post addressed to the corporation at the registered office, or if there is no registered office then at the place where the corporation carries on business. 4. The dispute is only with regard to service of notice on the respondent, but the order impugned in the Civil Revision Petition is contrary to Rule 2 (b) Order XXIX of Code of Civil Procedure 1908, service by leaving it or sending it by post addressed to the corporation at the registered office, or if there is no registered office then at the place where the corporation carries on business is self sufficient service, is permitted by law. 5. Here, the petitioner complied with the procedure prescribed under the Rule 2 (b) Order XXIX of Code of Civil Procedure 1908 by sending notice to the registered office. Proof of service on the registered office is also placed on record, but still the Special Judge for trial of Commercial Disputes held that the service is not sufficient and ordered fresh notice. The impugned order is apparently illegal and contrary to Rule 2 (b) Order XXIX of Code of Civil Procedure 1908. On this ground alone the order is liable to be set aside.
In view of our discussion the order under challenge is illegal and contrary to Rule 2 (b) Order XXIX of Code of Civil Procedure 1908 and such order was passed by the Special Judge for trial of Commercial Disputes, exceeding his jurisdiction. Hence, the order impugned in this Civil Revision Petition is liable to be set asidewhile holding that the service of notice on the respondent is sufficient, and the Special Judge for trial of Commercial Disputes is directed to proceed in accordance with law.
AP HIGH COURT
| CRP/969/2020 | GE Power India Limited |
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
&
THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.969 OF 2020
ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice M.Satyanarayana Murthy)
This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is
filed questioning the order dated 27.07.2020 in
C.A.O.P.No.2 of 2020 passed by the Special Judge for trial of
Commercial Disputes, Ibrahimpatnam, Vijayawada.
2. The Special Judge for trial of Commercial Disputes,
Ibrahimpatnam, Vijayawada ordered notice to the respondent and
accordingly the petitioner appears to have sent the notice to the
respondent, but the trial Court by the order impugned in the Civil
Revision Petition held that ‘the notice is not served on the Managing
Director of the company. Hence, the service is not proper service. Issue
fresh notice to respondent personally and by post, and for counter
posted COP on 03.08.2020’.
3. This order is assailed on the ground that it is contrary to
Rule 2 Order XXIX of CPC, on the sole ground the petitioner sought
to set aside the impugned order. For better appreciation Rule 2
Order XXIX of Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is extracted as
hereunder:-
Rule 2 Order XXIX of Code of Civil Procedure 1908 "Service on
corporation"
Subject to any statutory provision regulating service of process,
where the suit is against a corporation, the summons may be served.
2
(a) on the secretary, or on any director, or other principal officer of the
corporation, (or)
(b) by leaving it or sending it by post addressed to the corporation at
the registered office, or if there is no registered office then at the
place where the corporation carries on business.
4. The dispute is only with regard to service of notice on the
respondent, but the order impugned in the Civil Revision Petition is
contrary to Rule 2 (b) Order XXIX of Code of Civil Procedure 1908,
service by leaving it or sending it by post addressed to the
corporation at the registered office, or if there is no registered office
then at the place where the corporation carries on business is self
sufficient service, is permitted by law.
5. Here, the petitioner complied with the procedure prescribed
under the Rule 2 (b) Order XXIX of Code of Civil Procedure 1908 by
sending notice to the registered office. Proof of service on the
registered office is also placed on record, but still the Special Judge
for trial of Commercial Disputes held that the service is not sufficient
and ordered fresh notice. The impugned order is apparently illegal
and contrary to Rule 2 (b) Order XXIX of Code of Civil Procedure
1908. On this ground alone the order is liable to be set aside.
6. During hearing learned counsel for the respondent fairly
conceded that the respondent will appear before the trial Court
even without sending the notice afresh and the same is recorded.
7. In view of our discussion the order under challenge is illegal
and contrary to Rule 2 (b) Order XXIX of Code of Civil Procedure
1908 and such order was passed by the Special Judge for trial of
Commercial Disputes, exceeding his jurisdiction. Hence, the order
impugned in this Civil Revision Petition is liable to be set aside.
3
8. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside
the order dated 27.07.2020 in C.A.O.P.No.2 of 2020 passed by the
Special Judge for trial of Commercial Disputes, Ibrahimpatnam,
Vijayawada, while holding that the service of notice on the
respondent is sufficient, and the Special Judge for trial of
Commercial Disputes is directed to proceed in accordance with law.
No costs.
Consequently miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall
also stand closed.
_________________________________________
JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
__________________________________
JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
Date: 31.07.2020
IS
4
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
&
THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.969 OF 2020
Date: 31-07-2020.
IS
