SHALIMAR ROPE WORKS LTD. versus ABDUL HUSSAIN H. M. HASAN BHAI RASSIWALA AND ORS.

Citation: [1980] 3 S.C.R. 1028 · Decided: 07-05-1980 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.L. UNTWALIA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
1> 
) 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SHALIMAR ROPE, WORKS LTD. 
v. 
ABDUL HUSSAIN H. M. HASAN BHAI RASSIWALA AND ORS. 
May 7, 1980 
[N. L. UNTWALIA, P. N. SHINGHAL AND V. D. TULZAPURKAR, JJ.J 
Surnmons, servic~ of-Suits by of against Corporation-Service of . sum-
mons how to be effer:ted to be valid.-Code of Civil Procedi1re Code, Order 29 
Rule 2, Order 5 Rule 17. 
The respondent filed a suit at Indore on 24-2-1975- against the 
appellant 
claiming damages to the tune ·of Rs. 26!000/- on· account of the. alleged non-
delivery of certain goods. 
Summons in the suit was sent to the registered office 
of the company in Calcutta and was served on Sr( Nav!akha on 
17-3-1975 
asking the company to appear at Indore on 25-3-1975. Since the company did 
not appear in the Court on that date, eventually, t~ exparte decree was passed 
on 22-4-1975. The appellant company came to know about the ex-parte decree 
for the first time when its constituted attorney Sri Jhunjhunwala received a notice· 
frorn the respondent by registered post demanding the. decretal dues. 'fhere-
upon 'Sri N. S. Pareek, the Works Secretary of the company who is in-charge of 
the legal matters \Vas sent to Indore toi ascertain as to how the· ex-parte decree 
can1e to be passed. Paree-k learnt that ·the summons was purported to 
have 
been served on Navalakha on 17-3-75. 
Navalakha .did not bring the fact of 
the receipt of summons by him to the knowledge of any responsible officer of 
the company. He was neither secretary nor a Director nor any other principal 
officer of the company authorised to receive summorls in the suit. The com-
pany remained in dark and. learnt for the lint time on 29-7-75 about the passing 
of the ex-parte decree. The Trial Court allowed the application" but the High 
Cou1t in revision under S. 115 of C.P.C. restored the ex-parte order. Hence 
the appea-1 by special ]eave. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : I. Rule 2 of Order XXIX of C.P.C. is not an exhaustive provision 
providing for all modes of service on the Company in the sense . as· to what is 
meant by service of summons on the Secretary, Director or Principal Officer. 
Service on managing agents who are a corporation is valid under clause (a) 
of Rule 2 of Order XXIX C.P.C., since a Principal Officer in clause (a) of 
Rule 2 has been held to include managing agents and it can under this rule, be 
on a juristic r:erson. 
[1031 D1..E] 
Jute and Guurzy Brokers Ltd.i & .A.nr. v. Union of India and Ors., [1961] 3 
SCR p. 20; followed. 
2. Sending a summon to a corporatiori by post addressed to it at its regis-
tered office may be a good mode of service either by itself, or preferably, by 
Way of an addition.n l n1ode of service. But leaving the summons at the regis-
tered office of the corporation if it is literally interpreted to say that tho sum-
mons can be left anywhere nncared for in the registered office of the company. 
then it will lead to anomalous and absurd results. It has to be read in the 
background cl' provision contained in Onler 5 Rule 17 of tlie Code. In other 
~- -
I i 
\ 
.! 
' 
f 
SHALIMAR ROPE WO,RKS v. ABDUL HUSSAIN (Untwalia, !.) 
. 1029 
...ms if the serving peon or bailiff is not able to serve the summon.. on the 
A 
~ 
or any Director or any other Principal Officer of the Corporation 
beCanse either be refnses to sign the sullllIIOOS or is not to be found by the 
llU\'ing person even after due diligence then he can leave the snmmons at the 
registered office of the company and make a report to that effect. Jn the instant 
cue nothing of the klrul was done. It was also not the case llf the respondent 
ill i13 rejoindec filed in the Miscellaneons case that the service of the summons 
was effected in accordance with the fun part of claU!e (b) ~ R.nle 2 of Order 
B 
29 of the Code. 
[!()32 B-D] 
3. Nowhere in_ the rejoinder a st.and was taken by the respondents that the 
summons was duly served on the company because it was left at the registered 
office of the company. 
The company had no knowledge· of the ex~parte decree, 
evell otherwise, before 29-7-75. Hence the application under O.JX Rule 13 of 
C.P.C. has been correctly allowed. 
[1033 C-DJ 
C 
°CML APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 366 of 1979. 
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and • Order dated 
28-2-1978 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court (Indore Bench) in Civil 
Revision No. 93 of 1976. 
Shanker Ghosh and· S. K. Gambhir for the Appellant. 
R. K. Garg and A. K. Sanghi for Respondent
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.