Statutory notice by registered post to the registered office was treated as valid service despite the office being closed.

A statutory notice under section 434(1)(a) of the Companies Act, 1956 is treated as duly served when it is sent by registered post to the company's registered office in the prescribed manner, even if returned with an endorsement that the office was closed. The company cannot defeat the statutory presumption of service by its own closure or failure to receive the notice. On that basis, objections to maintainability failed. The court also declined to recall the ex parte admission order and appointment of the provisional liquidator, holding that non-service on counsel before the Debt Recovery Tribunal did not by itself amount to fraud or justify recall absent any substantive defence.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the statutory notice under section 434(1)(a) of the Companies Act, 1956 was duly served when it was sent by registered post to the company's registered office but returned with the remark that the office was closed. (ii) Whether the ex parte admission order and appointment of the provisional liquidator were liable to be recalled on the ground that notice of the winding up proceedings was not served on the company or on its counsel before the Debt Recovery Tribunal.

Issue (i): Whether the statutory notice under section 434(1)(a) of the Companies Act, 1956 was duly served when it was sent by registered post to the company's registered office but returned with the remark that the office was closed.

Analysis: The notice was addressed to the registered office recorded in the official records and was dispatched by registered post. The company did not dispute that the address was its registered office, and the return endorsement showed that the office was closed. Reading section 434(1)(a) with section 51 of the Companies Act, 1956, the Court held that service is effected when the creditor causes the notice to be delivered at the registered office by the prescribed mode, and the company cannot rely on its own closure or failure to receive mail to defeat the statutory presumption. The provision has to be given a pragmatic construction, supported by the presumption of service drawn from the law relating to postal dispatch.

Conclusion: The statutory notice was held to have been duly delivered and served. The objection to maintainability on this ground failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the ex parte admission order and appointment of the provisional liquidator were liable to be recalled on the ground that notice of the winding up proceedings was not served on the company or on its counsel before the Debt Recovery Tribunal.

Analysis: After the statutory notice issue was rejected, the Court held that non-service on the advocates appearing before the Debt Recovery Tribunal did not amount to fraud and did not by itself justify recall. The counsel before the Tribunal were not shown to be authorised to represent the company in the winding up proceedings before the High Court. The application also did not disclose any substantive defence on merits against the debt and the circumstances did not warrant recall ex debito justitiae.

Conclusion: The prayer for recall was rejected and the ex parte order was not set aside.

Final Conclusion: The Court upheld the validity of service of the winding up notice and declined to reopen the admission order, leaving the winding up proceedings to continue.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory notice under section 434(1)(a) is validly served when it is sent by registered post to the company's registered office in the manner prescribed by law, and the company cannot avoid the legal consequence of service by keeping the office closed or by relying on non-service attributable to its own conduct.

---