Service of notice on corporation = Rule 2 Order XXIX of Code of Civil Procedure 1908 "Service on corporation" Subject to any statutory provision regulating service of process, where the suit is against a corporation, the summons may be served. 2 (a) on the secretary, or on any director, or other principal officer of the corporation, (or) (b) by leaving it or sending it by post addressed to the corporation at the registered office, or if there is no registered office then at the place where the corporation carries on business. 4. The dispute is only with regard to service of notice on the respondent, but the order impugned in the Civil Revision Petition is contrary to Rule 2 (b) Order XXIX of Code of Civil Procedure 1908, service by leaving it or sending it by post addressed to the corporation at the registered office, or if there is no registered office then at the place where the corporation carries on business is self sufficient service, is permitted by law.

Service of notice on corporation = Rule 2 Order XXIX of Code of Civil Procedure 1908 "Service on corporation" Subject to any statutory provision regulating service of process, where the suit is against a corporation, the summons may be served. 2 (a) on the secretary, or on any director, or other principal officer of the corporation, (or) (b) by leaving it or sending it by post addressed to the corporation at the registered office, or if there is no registered office then at the place where the corporation carries on business. 4. The dispute is only with regard to service of notice on the respondent, but the order impugned in the Civil Revision Petition is contrary to Rule 2 (b) Order XXIX of Code of Civil Procedure 1908, service by leaving it or sending it by post addressed to the corporation at the registered office, or if there is no registered office then at the place where the corporation carries on business is self sufficient service, is permitted by law. 

AP HIGH COURT

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

&

THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.969 OF 2020

GE Power India Limited
Versus
Navayuga Engineering Company Limited,

ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice M.Satyanarayana Murthy)

This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is

filed questioning the order dated 27.07.2020 in

C.A.O.P.No.2 of 2020 passed by the Special Judge for trial of

Commercial Disputes, Ibrahimpatnam, Vijayawada.

2. The Special Judge for trial of Commercial Disputes,

Ibrahimpatnam, Vijayawada ordered notice to the respondent and

accordingly the petitioner appears to have sent the notice to the

respondent, but the trial Court by the order impugned in the Civil

Revision Petition held that ‘the notice is not served on the Managing

Director of the company. Hence, the service is not proper service. Issue

fresh notice to respondent personally and by post, and for counter

posted COP on 03.08.2020’.

3. This order is assailed on the ground that it is contrary to

Rule 2 Order XXIX of CPC, on the sole ground the petitioner sought

to set aside the impugned order. For better appreciation Rule 2

Order XXIX of Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is extracted as

hereunder:-

Rule 2 Order XXIX of Code of Civil Procedure 1908 "Service on

corporation"

Subject to any statutory provision regulating service of process,

where the suit is against a corporation, the summons may be served. 

2

(a) on the secretary, or on any director, or other principal officer of the

corporation, (or)

(b) by leaving it or sending it by post addressed to the corporation at

the registered office, or if there is no registered office then at the

place where the corporation carries on business.

4. The dispute is only with regard to service of notice on the

respondent, but the order impugned in the Civil Revision Petition is

contrary to Rule 2 (b) Order XXIX of Code of Civil Procedure 1908,

service by leaving it or sending it by post addressed to the

corporation at the registered office, or if there is no registered office

then at the place where the corporation carries on business is self

sufficient service, is permitted by law.

5. Here, the petitioner complied with the procedure prescribed

under the Rule 2 (b) Order XXIX of Code of Civil Procedure 1908 by

sending notice to the registered office. Proof of service on the

registered office is also placed on record, but still the Special Judge

for trial of Commercial Disputes held that the service is not sufficient

and ordered fresh notice. The impugned order is apparently illegal

and contrary to Rule 2 (b) Order XXIX of Code of Civil Procedure

1908. On this ground alone the order is liable to be set aside.

6. During hearing learned counsel for the respondent fairly

conceded that the respondent will appear before the trial Court

even without sending the notice afresh and the same is recorded.

7. In view of our discussion the order under challenge is illegal

and contrary to Rule 2 (b) Order XXIX of Code of Civil Procedure

1908 and such order was passed by the Special Judge for trial of

Commercial Disputes, exceeding his jurisdiction. Hence, the order

impugned in this Civil Revision Petition is liable to be set aside. 

3

8. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside

the order dated 27.07.2020 in C.A.O.P.No.2 of 2020 passed by the

Special Judge for trial of Commercial Disputes, Ibrahimpatnam,

Vijayawada, while holding that the service of notice on the

respondent is sufficient, and the Special Judge for trial of

Commercial Disputes is directed to proceed in accordance with law.

No costs.

 Consequently miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall

also stand closed.

_________________________________________

JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

__________________________________

JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

Date: 31.07.2020

IS 

4

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

&

THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.969 OF 2020

Date: 31-07-2020.

IS