Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + HC Companies Law - 2017 (11) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (11) TMI 1301 - BOMBAY HIGH COURTWinding up order eligibility - Copy of the said Company Petition was sought to be served at the address of the Respondent Company appearing in the record of the Registrar of Companies - the address mentioned of the Respondent Company was an address in Koparkhairane, Navi Mumbai however, the packet which was sent at the said address camhe back with the remark that the company is 'not available' - Held that:- As per R.28. Service on company the requirement is that a copy of the Company Petition along with notice in the prescribed form is to be lodged with the Company Department of this Court for facilitating the service to be effected on the Company of which windingup is sought. At this stage, it is required to be noted that on behalf of the Petitioner as many as three affidavits of service have been filed. However, the said affidavits of service are predating the admission of the Company Petition. The said affidavits disclose the three addresses at which the notice prior to the admission of the Company Petition was sought to be served on the Respondent Company. Insofar as the third address is concerned, the said address has been furnished to the Petitioner after a search was taken by the Petitioner in the office of the Registrar of Companies. The said address forms part of the 'Company Master Details' of the Respondent Company. In the extract furnished by the office of the Registrar of Companies, the address mentioned is the aforesaid third address namely Koparkhairane, Navi Mumbai. It is required to be noted that the preadmission notice was sought to be served at the said address. However, the packet came with remark as 'not available at the said address'. As indicated above, the Company Petition came to be admitted on 30/07/2012 and in terms of Rule 28, it was required on the part of the Petitioner that the notice be once again served on the Respondent at the said address i.e. Koparkhairane, Navi Mumbai. Admittedly, this has not been done. It is not possible to accept the contention urged on behalf of the Petitioner that since the packet which was sought to be served on the Respondent Company at the Koparkhairane, Navi Mumbai address had returned with the remark that the Company was not available at the said address, the Petitioner was not required to amend the causetitle so as to incorporate the said Koparkhairane, Navi Mumbai address in the causetitle. In our view, in a matter as serious as a Company Petition which seeks direction for windingup of a Company which obviously has a serious consequence for the Company, the procedure cannot be shortcircuited as in the matter sought to be contended by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner i.e. the Appellant herein. Since the Koparkhairane, Navi Mumbai address was the address appearing in the 'Company Master Details' of the Registrar of Companies, the Appellant was required to take steps to serve the notice post the admission of the petition at the said address. It is also not possible to accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that Rule 28 (2) provides for service to be effected at the last known address. The said provision would apply only if there is no registered address of the company. In our view, therefore, there is no merit in the above Appeal. The order passed by the learned Single Judge, in the facts and circumstances of the case, condoning the delay whilst setting aside / recalling the order dated 14/11/2014, cannot be found fault with.
|