Allowed

Rajdhani Marmo and Tiles Pvt.Ltd.and Ors. v. Kimbar Lay Engineer Pvt.Ltd.

Rajasthan HC1 Apr 2010CMA/324/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge set aside the ex-parte decree and rejected of Appeal Order holding that service of summons on an accountant does not satisfy the requirement of Order 29 Rule 2 C.P.C. for companies.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 26.11.2008 and the ex-parte decree dated 14.11.2007 are set aside; parties to appear afresh on 3rd May, 2010.

Rajdhani Marmo and Tiles Pvt.Ltd.and Ors… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2010)

¶1

CMA-324/09-Shri Rajdhani Marmo & Tiles Pvt.Ltd.& Ors.Vs. Kimbar Lay Engineers Pvt. Ltd.

¶2

Judgment dt.1.4.10

¶3

S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.324/2009 Shri Rajdhani Marmo and Tiles Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

¶4

Vs.

¶5

Kimbar Lay Engineers Pvt. Ltd.

¶6

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI

¶7

Mr. B.L. Choudhary for the appellants. Mr. Nikhil Dungawat for the respondent.

¶8

Heard learned counsels.

¶9

This appeal is directed against the order dated 14.11.2007 whereby the learned court below rejected the defendant's application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. for setting aside the exparte decree passed against them.

¶10

Learned counsel for the appellant-defendants that the notices on the limited company registered under the Companies Act were required to be served on the Managing Director or the Secretary of the Company as per Order 29 Rule 2 C.P.C. and therefore, the service on the accountant Chunni Lal could not be treated as sufficient and therefore, the ex-parte order deserves to be set aside.

¶11

On the other hand learned counsel for the respondentplaintiff Mr. Nikhil Dungawat submits that the service of the summons was duly effected on the defendant company, therefore, the

¶12

Judgment dt.1.4.10

¶13

2/2

¶14

CMA-324/09-Shri Rajdhani Marmo & Tiles Pvt.Ltd.& Ors.Vs. Kimbar Lay Engineers Pvt. Ltd.

¶15

rejection of application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. is justified.

¶16

Having heard learned counsels and upon perusal of the reasons given in the impugned order dated 26.11.2008 passed by the learned court below, this Court is satisfied that the summons of the suit by the learned trial court were not properly served on the prescribed authority in accordance with the Order 29 Rule 2 C.P.C. for limited Company registered under the Companies Act, the prescribed officer for accepting such service is any Director or Managing Director of the Company or Secretary or duly authorized officer of the Company. It is not the case of the respondent-plaintiff that the said accountant Chunni Lal was the prescribed officer of the said Company to accept such summon. Therefore, service on the said Accountant cannot be treated as sufficient.

¶17

Consequently, this appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 26.11.2008 as well as the ex-parte decree dated 14.11.2007 is set aside and the parties are directed to appear before the learned trial court afresh in the first instance on 3^rd May, 2010. In view of the time lapsed, the learned trial court is requested to expedite the trial. No costs.

¶18

[ DR. VINEET KOTHARI ], J.

¶19

item No.55 babulal/

Rajdhani Marmo and Tiles Pvt.Ltd.and Ors. v. Kimbar Lay Engineer Pvt.Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajdhani Marmo and Tiles Pvt.Ltd.and Ors. v. Kimbar Lay Engineer Pvt.Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

United India Insurancr Com Vs Radha Bai and Ans

M/S Lahar Ice Cream Factory Vs A.C.T.O.WARD-2,CIRCLE-D,JODHPUR

A.C.T.O.Check Post,Dungarpur Vs M/S Globe Cargo Services

Bhanwar Lal Vs Kailash and Ors.

Puna Lal Vs Gopal Lal and Ors.

N.R.T.Traders Vs Raj Kumar