Proof of service of notice was not established, so the ex parte decree could not be sustained.

Proof of service of notice was ative: the registered acknowledgment card bore a signature different from the addressee's and the address particulars did not match those in the proceedings, so service was not established. Without valid service, the basis for treating the respondent as ex parte and sustaining the decree failed. The HC therefore set aside the order refusing to set aside the decree and remitted the matter for fresh consideration, with both parties permitted to adduce evidence.

---

---

Issues: Whether the decree passed in the company proceedings could be sustained when the alleged service of notice to the respondent was not proved, and whether the order refusing to set aside the decree required interference.

Analysis: The notice was said to have been served by registered post with acknowledgment due, but the acknowledgment card showed a signature different from that of the addressee and the address particulars also did not tally with the address furnished in the proceedings. On the facts, the Court held that the registered notice had not in fact been received by the appellant. Since service was not established, the foundation for treating the respondent as ex parte and for sustaining the decree was unreliable. In such circumstances, the order declining to set aside the decree could not stand.

Conclusion: The order refusing to set aside the decree was set aside, and the matter was remitted to the learned single judge for fresh consideration after permitting both parties to adduce evidence.

---