Logix Infosoft Private Ltd. v. CB Richard Ellis South Asia Private Limited

Delhi High Court · 25 Feb 2014 · 2014:DHC:1066

Valmiki J. Mehta

FAO 81/2012

2014:DHC:1066

civil appeal_dismissed

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal challenging service of summons at the registered office, holding that mere oral claims of address change without documentary proof do not invalidate service under Order 29 Rule 2 CPC.

Full Text

FAO 81/2012
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
FAO No. 81/2012 & CM No. 3042/2012 25th February, 2014
LOGIX INFOSOFT PRIVATE LTD. ......Appellant
Through: Mr. Navneet Panwar, Adv.

VERSUS

CB RICHARD ELLIS SOUTH ASIA PRIVATE LIMITED...... Respondent
Through: Mr. Mohit Chadha, Adv.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not? VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

JUDGMENT

1. This first appeal is filed under Order 43 Rule 1 (d) CPC impugning the order dated 5.11.2011 by which the court below dismissed the application filed by the appellant-defendant under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. The application under Order 9(13) CPC was filed for setting aside the decree dated 31.7.2010 for Rs.3,89,668/- against the applicant, and which decree was passed in favour of the respondent/plaintiff who had provided real estate consultancy services to the applicant/defendant in terms of the contract dated 8.4.2008. 2014:DHC:1066

2. Before the court below, the only ground urged in the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC was that the appellant-company had shifted its address from D-922, New Friends Colony, New Delhi to the new address at E-9, Panchsheel Park, New Delhi and therefore it was claimed that there was no valid service upon the appellant/defendant.

3. The court below has dismissed the application by making the following relevant observations:-

“5. During the course of arguments it is submitted on behalf of the defendant/applicant that defendant had changed his office from D-922, New Friends Colony, New Delhi in the month of January2008. The same is vehemently opposed by Ld. counsel for the plaintiff by inviting my attention towards document at page no.11 which is letter of intent dated 08.04.2008 wherein the registered office of the defendant is mentioned as D-922, New Friends Colony, New Delhi. 6. It is further submitted by Ld. counsel for plaintiff that summons have been duly served upon the defendant on the above mentioned address and the application filed on behalf of defendant should be dismissed with costs. 7. In the case of V.K.Constructions Works Ltd. & Ors. Vs. M/s. Abdul Khalique & Ors. 2011 I AD(Delhi) 785 wherein it was held that : “As per order 29 rule 2 CPC the summons on a corporation may be served by leaving it or sending by post, addressed to the corporation at the registered office”.

8. Upon facts and circumstances, I am of this considered opinion that the summons were duly served upon the defendant. The submissions of Ld. counsel for applicant/defendant that they have shifted their office from D-922, New Friends Colony, New Delhi are merely the oral averments and could not be substantiated on account of document D-11 which is letter of intent dated 08.04.2008 between both the parties wherein the address of registered office provided as D-922, New Friends Colony, New Delhi upon which service has been duly effected.

9. More so it may be noted that the applicant/defendant was neither the rustic villages nor the illiterate to be unaware of the court proceedings in case of service on their registered office. For the above reasons, I do not find any merit in the present application and the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost.” (underlining added)

4. I completely agree with the conclusions of the trial court because of the reasons which have been stated by the trial court including of letter of intent dated 08.04.2008 of the company having been issued from the address which the appellant/defendant company alleged that it had left.

5. In addition to the above, I may note that when if a company shifts its address, it informs various authorities whether they be the tax-authorities or the Registrar of companies or the postal authorities and so on. In the present case, with respect to the tax authorities or postal authorities there are no pleadings or documents filed that these authorities were ever informed by the appellant-defendant of the change of addresses. Counsel for the appellant relies upon a Form-18 which was said to be submitted to the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, however be that as it may, even a reference to the said form does not show that what is the actual date on which this form was submitted with the Registrar of companies.

6. I may note that the trial court while decreeing the original suit for recovery of money has granted interest at a reasonable rate of 8% per annum simple.

7. In view of the above, there is no merit in the appeal, and the same is therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

8. The amount which is deposited by the appellant in this Court alongwith accrued interest will be paid to the respondent-plaintiff, and which will be taken by respondent-plaintiff in terms of the judgment and decree dated 31.7.2010 as part adjustment.

FEBRUARY 25, 2014 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J. ib

Logix Infosoft Private Ltd. v. CB Richard Ellis South Asia Private Limited

AI Summary

Full Text

JUDGMENT

Contact Us for a Free Consultation