1993 (9) TMI 303

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... was not evidenced by any witness as required under the Rules. Counsel for the official liquidator, Mr. B.N. Nayyar, contended that it was a proper service and the objection raised by this court is not sustainable. According to him, the Original Side Rules of this High Court are not applicable to the proceedings pending before the company court. The company court has to follow the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 (hereinafter called "the Companies Rules"), or at best the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, but by no stretch of imagination the provisions of the Original Side Rules of the High Court can be attracted to the proceedings before the company court. In order to strengthen his arguments, Mr. B.N. Nayyar, Senior St....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ctions 122 to 128 have to regulate High Court's own procedure in the exercise of its original civil jurisdiction. He, therefore, contended that the company court does not fall under the definition of the original civil jurisdiction. No rigid rules have been laid down for company court. Its rules are based on equity and principles of natural justice. Under the Companies Rules no provisions are provided for the evidencing of the affixation by one witness. In the absence of any specific rule in this regard we can look to the Code for assistance as envisaged under rule 6. Rule 6 of the Companies Rules reads as under:- "Save as provided by the Act or by these rules the practice and procedure of the court and the provisions of the Code so f....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ation was proper or not. It is also true that while passing the order neither this court nor the Deputy Registrar imposed any condition that the affixation should be evidenced by one witness. In the absence of any such order, the process server's affixing the summons at the last known address of the respondent without being evidenced by any witness will not invalidate the service by way of affixation as observed by this court. Mr. Nayyar went to the extent of contending that even the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, are only directory and not mandatory. This was so held by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Punjab Finance P. Ltd. v. Malhara Singh ( No. 1) [1975] 45 Comp. Cas.254 and by the Bombay High Court in the case of ....