Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

11 /17 os-wp-1338-16 and 2046-16.doc Registered Post A.D. is returned with a remark "intimation posted"

and "not claimed" or "unclaimed". Therefore, in such a case the service of summons or Court notice cannot be treated as a good service.
13) Reliance is also placed on the judgment in the matter of Sushil Kumar Sabharwal Vs. Gurpreet Singh & Ors, reported in (2002) 5 SCC 377 to contend that the Court before exercising its discretion of passing ex parte decree must be satisfied that due service of summons was "proved". A reliance is also placed on a judgment of the Division Bench in the matter of Lucy Ayline Jacinto vs. Union Bank of India & Ors reported in 2011 (3) Mh.L.J.480. In the reported matter, as is evident from the judgment, it is observed in paragraph 14 that the Court cannot be unmindful of the circumstance that a fraud is alleged to have been perpetrated upon the first respondent by its then DGM Tawadia, who was at the material time, the Manager at the M.S.Marg Branch. The fraud pertains to the discounting of bills in favour of a proprietary concern. It was also observed by the Court that the address of the petitioner was totally different as such court proceeded to direct setting aside the ex parte decree. In the instant matter, it is observed that there was a proper service on defendant No.2 and that defendant No.2 has admitted the

In view of sub-regulation (4) of Regulation 19 where the summons or notice is in respect of a claim against the Corporation or Partnership Firm, if it is served on the Secretary or the Director or other principal officer of the Corporation or the Partner of the Partnership Firm at its registered office or on the address of the Partnership Firm, it shall be good service.

15) In the instant matter, petitioner no.2 has not disputed his address and has in fact admitted the service of notice on him, in the memo of writ petition. A finding has been also recorded by the DRT while rejecting the application tendered by the petitioners for setting aside ex parte decree that the petitioner no.2 has not disputed service of notice to him. What has been disputed by respondent no.2 is that there is no service of notice sent to him on the registered address of the Company. The objection raised is 15 /17 os-wp-1338-16 and 2046-16.doc required to be rejected, since, admittedly, petitioner No.2 has not disputed receipt of the notice. Admittedly, petitioner No.2 is the Director of the Company. Apart from this, notice transmitted on the address of the company if not claimed shall also be termed as a good service. Sub-regulation (6) of Regulation 19 provides specifically that where the Summons or Notice is returned with postal remarks such as 'refused', 'unclaimed', 'not claimed', 'intimated' or 'intimation given' it may be declared that the Summons or Notice is served.