TaxTMI Login
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%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether, in a pending company proceeding, every subsequent application must be accompanied by a judge's summons and served afresh on all respondents, including those already represented by advocates, or whether service on their advocates is sufficient.
Analysis: Rule 11(b) of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, read with rule 19, requires a judge's summons for applications under the Act or the Rules and service on every person against whom an order is sought. The procedural scheme, however, must be read with the High Court's procedural rules and the principles governing interlocutory applications. Where respondents have already entered appearance and are represented by advocates in the pending proceeding, service of the application on their advocates is sufficient and fresh postal service or independent notice to the respondents is unnecessary. Fresh notice is required only where a party had been served earlier but remained unrepresented, because an additional prayer against such a person cannot be made behind the back of the affected party consistently with natural justice.
Conclusion: Fresh service of the application on respondents already represented by counsel is not required, and service on their advocates is sufficient. The service in the present application was held complete and sufficient.
TaxTMI 
