Statutory service through managing agents upheld for requisition and acquisition of unascertained goods

Service of requisition and acquisition notices on mills through their managing agents was effective where the communication, read as a whole, clearly identified the corporation and its principal officer. The Court treated service on the managing agent as sufficient service on the mills under the relevant rules and company procedure, so the requisition was valid. For acquisition, goods represented by pucca delivery orders had not passed in title because they remained unascertained until appropriation and delivery; the mills therefore remained the owners for the statutory acquisition process. The acquisition notices were likewise validly served through the managing agents, and title to the requisitioned goods vested in the Government.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the requisition orders under rule 75A of the Defence of India Rules were validly served on the mills through their managing agents so as to effect a valid requisition; (ii) Whether the notices of acquisition under rule 75A were validly served on the mills through their managing agents so that title in the requisitioned goods vested in the Government.

Issue (i): Whether the requisition orders under rule 75A of the Defence of India Rules were validly served on the mills through their managing agents so as to effect a valid requisition.

Analysis: Requisition under rule 75A required service on the person who could place the goods at the disposal of the requisitioning authority. The goods were in the possession of the mills, not the holders of delivery orders, and the orders, read with the schedules, were directed to the mills through their managing agents. Service on a managing agent was treated as service on a principal officer of the corporation within Order XXIX Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and rule 119 of the Defence of India Rules. The defect in the form of address did not matter because the communication as a whole clearly identified the mills and their managing agents.

Conclusion: The requisition orders were validly and duly served on the mills through their managing agents and effected a valid requisition.

Issue (ii): Whether the notices of acquisition under rule 75A were validly served on the mills through their managing agents so that title in the requisitioned goods vested in the Government.

Analysis: The property represented by the pucca delivery orders had not in law passed to the holders because the goods were unascertained until appropriation and actual delivery, attracting section 18 of the Indian Sale of Goods Act, 1930. The Government did not claim through the mills but under the statute, and therefore was not bound by any estoppel that might operate between mill and delivery-order holder. The mills were thus the owners for purposes of rule 75A(2). Service of the acquisition notices on the managing agents was held to be a reasonable and effective mode of service, consistent with the modes recognised by section 148 of the Indian Companies Act, 1913 and Order XXIX Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The same manner of service that was good for requisition was held sufficient for acquisition.

Conclusion: The notices of acquisition were validly served on the mills through their managing agents, and the goods vested in the Government on 30 September 1946.

Final Conclusion: The requisition was upheld, the acquisition was upheld, the defendants' appeals failed, and the Union of India's appeal succeeded, resulting in a declaration that the goods were validly requisitioned and acquired and vested in the Government.

Ratio Decidendi: Where statutory service is required on the owner or person concerned, service on the principal officer of a corporation is effective if the communication as a whole clearly identifies the corporation, and goods sold under unascertained contracts do not pass in title until appropriation notwithstanding trade usage or estoppel between private parties.

---