Delhi High Court
Parasarampuria Synthetics Ltd. vs Shankar Prasad on 31 January, 2003
Equivalent citations: 2003VIIAD(DELHI)401, AIR2003DELHI348, [2005]123COMPCAS419(DELHI), 104(2003)DLT213, 2003(69)DRJ53, AIR 2003 DELHI 348, (2003) 69 DRJ 53, (2003) 104 DLT 213, (2005) 123 COMCAS 419, (2003) 9 INDLD 393
Author: R.S. Sodhi
Bench: R.S. Sodhi
JUDGMENT B.A. Khan, J.
1. Appellant is contesting ex-parte decree dated 1.9.2000 passed in respondent's Suit No. 2063/98. For this he had filed two applications IA Nos.3608-09 /2001 -- one for condensation of delay and the other for setting aside of the ex-parte decree which stand rejected by the impugned order dated 9.11.2001. Hence this appeal.
2. The only issue involved is whether or not summons were validly served on appellant under Order 29 Rule 2, CPC. Learned Single Judge has held that service of summons was valid but appellant disputes this.
3. Respondents filed Suit No. 2603/1998 showing appellant's (defendant) address its corporate office in Haus Khas, Delhi instead of its registered office at Bhiwadi in Rajasthan. Summons were issued by the Joint Registrar on 5.10.1998 and were eventually served on some employee of appellant at the Hauz Khas corporate office on 17.3.1999. The Process Server submitted his report in this regard culminating in order dated 20.8.1999 taking ex-parte proceedings against appellant. This was followed by the ex-parte judgment and the decree on 1.9.2000 and the consequent execution by the Execution Petition No. 23/2001.
4. Appellant filed the two applications for condensation of delay and for setting aside the ex-parte decree on the plea that summons were not validly served on it under Order 29 Rule 2, CPC. The company contended that its authorised officer was one Mr. K.C. Joshi who was posted at Bhiwadi in Rajasthan and that non else had any authority to receive the summons. Moreover, the summons could only be served at its registered office at Bhiwadi and service of these at the corporate office was not a valid service.
5. Learned Single Judge over-ruled all this and held :
"In the present case, summons for 9.7.1999 were sent to defendant at Corporate Office Hauz Khas. It was clearly pointed out in the summons that service is to be effected through Managing Director/Director/Secretary or Principal Officer of company. Thus the mode of service as pointed out on the summons itself was as prescribed in Clause (a) of Rule 2 of Order XXIX, CPC either by service to be effected on Secretary/Director or Principal Officer of the Corporation. Summons were duly served in the Corporate Office of the company 26th March, 1999, which was received by the person concerned under his signature along with seal of the company without raising any objection about his authority to receive the summons. For compliance of Order XXIX Rule 2, CPC, it is sufficient to address the summons in the name of defendant and simultaneously specifying the mode of service i.e. service to be effected through Managing Director/Secretary or Principal Officer. In the circumstances, I think summons were duly served on the defendant in accordance with order XXIX Rule 2, CPC."
6. Learned Counsel for appellant has reiterated his stand that there was no valid service of summons on the appellant as these were not served on the company's registered office under Order XXDC Rule 2, CPC. He has also invoked the aid of Supreme Court Judgment in Shalimar Rope Works Ltd. v. Abdul Hussain and Ors., 1980 SC 1163, to suggest that non-service of summons on the unauthorised officer of the company was fatal and warranted setting aside of the ex-parte decree.
7. Learned Counsel for respondent Mr. Gagan Gupta has on the other hand distinguished the Supreme Court Judgment on the plea that it dealt with a situation prior to 1976 amendment in Order 9 Rule 13 which provided that an ex-parte order was not liable to be set aside on the ground of some irregularity in the service of summons when the Court was satisfied and the defendant had notice of the next date of hearing and had sufficient time to appear on that date.
8. The only issue that falls for consideration is whether service of summons on appellant's corporate office was valid and whether it was mandatory to serve it on the company's registered office only under Order 29 Rule 2.
9. The relevant provisions of Order 29 Rule 2 read thus:
"Service on Corporation--Subject to any statutory provison regulating service of process, where the suit is against a Corporation, the summons may be served-
(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."
10. This, in our view, does not limit the service of summons on the registered office of the company alone. It provides for different modes which include service of summon on Secretary or Managing Director or Principal Officer of the Corporation or service through registered post on the Corporation's registered office or at the place where Corporation carries on the business in case it has no registered office. This in no case could be said to restrict the service of summons on the registered office only. Therefore, where summons were served on the corporate office of the company also and were admittedly received by the employee of the company who had executed the receipt affixing the seal of the company, it could not be said or held that the service was bad or invalid for contravening provisions of Order 29 Rule 2.
11. It may as well be that company had appointed some officer as the authorised officer to conduct cases or to receive communications from the outside. But that was its own internal arrangement at best of which its knowledge could not be attributed to respondents or for that matter general public. Respondent having effected service on appellant's corporate office at Hauz Khas, which is admitted had done his duty. He was not expected to do more in the circumstances.
12. Apart from that, even if it was assumed that appellant's employee was not authorised, service of summons on him would at best constitute any irregularity under proviso to Order 9 Rule 13 which lays down that no ex-parte order could be set aside on the ground that there was some irregularity in the service of summons when the Court was satisfied that defendant had notice of the date of hearing and had sufficient time to appear on the next date.
13. We, therefore, find ourselves in accord with the view taken by the learned Single Judge and affirm his order to dismiss this appeal.