Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether service by affixation in company court proceedings was invalid because it was not evidenced by a witness, and whether the Original Side Rules of the High Court applied to such proceedings.
Analysis: The Company Court is governed primarily by the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, and where those rules are silent, recourse may be had to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 so far as applicable. The Original Side Rules framed for the High Court's original civil jurisdiction do not automatically govern company court proceedings. Under Order 5 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the use of the words "if any" shows that the presence of a witness at the time of affixation is not an invariable requirement. In the absence of any specific order requiring attestation by a witness, affixation at the respondent's last known address does not become invalid merely because no witness was available.
Conclusion: Service by affixation without a witness was held to be proper and valid, and the earlier view treating such service as invalid was reversed.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the relevant court rules are silent, service by affixation is not rendered invalid under Order 5 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 merely because no witness attested the affixation, unless a contrary requirement is expressly imposed.