https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98602 Affixation of summons at a company's registered office after refusal by an employee was treated as due service, because the procedural rule on service on a corporation was read broadly to include an incorporated company and postal service remained permissive rather than mandatory. The challenge to service therefore failed. On limitation, the court accepted that the pleaded date of knowledge was untrue and held that, once that asserted date was disbelieved, there was no duty to independently fix the actual date of knowledge without a reliable factual basis from the petitioner. The application to set aside the ex parte decree was thus time-barred and could not be entertained. en-us Fri, 10 May 1968 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 21 Jan 2012 12:46:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98602 Affixation of summons at a company's registered office after refusal by an employee was treated as due service, because the procedural rule on service on a corporation was read broadly to include an incorporated company and postal service remained permissive rather than mandatory. The challenge to service therefore failed. On limitation, the court accepted that the pleaded date of knowledge was untrue and held that, once that asserted date was disbelieved, there was no duty to independently fix the actual date of knowledge without a reliable factual basis from the petitioner. The application to set aside the ex parte decree was thus time-barred and could not be entertained. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 10 May 1968 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98602