Substantial compliance with notice service and acknowledgment of debt in consent terms justified relief despite no bona fide dispute.

Service of notice was treated as substantially compliant with Rule 32 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 where the notice sent to the registered address was returned with the endorsement that the company had left without address, and publication was also effected in newspapers and the Gazette. In the absence of any reply from the company, the court treated the consent terms as an acknowledgement of debt and found no credible or bona fide dispute. On that basis, breach of the consent terms justified relief, and the petition was made absolute in terms of prayers (a) and (b).

---

---

Issues: Whether service of notice and publication complied with Rule 32 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, and whether the petition could be made absolute on the basis of breach of consent terms and absence of any bona fide dispute.

Analysis: The notice sent to the registered address was returned with the endorsement that the company had left without address, and publication was also made in newspapers and the Gazette. The Court treated these steps as substantial compliance with Rule 32. No reply was filed by the company. The consent terms were treated as an acknowledgement of debt, and in the absence of any credible or bona fide dispute, the breach of the consent terms justified relief.

Conclusion: Service was held to be duly complied with, and the petition was made absolute in terms of prayers (a) and (b).

---