Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Summons served upon a company can also be deemed valid if served on a person authorized to represent the company, even if the actual company does not receive it directly (["1.Mohomed Thawbeer Mohomed Haneez No. 142 vs Sampath Leasing And Facturing Limited - Supreme Court"]) ["GOPAL CH. SAHA vs MUSTT. KULSUMA KHATUN and ORS - Gauhati"].
Analysis and Conclusion:
References:- ["MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company S. A. vs NTC Industries Limited - Calcutta"]- ["Tata Steel Utilities and Infrastructure Services Limited VS State of Jharkhand - Jharkhand"]- ["Biman Bangladesh Airlines Limited VS Kuka Travels Private Ltd. - Calcutta"]- ["SUMAN CHATTOPADHYAY vs ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE - Calcutta"]- ["SUMAN CHATTOPADHYAY vs ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE - Calcutta"]- ["KAWALJIT SINGH JOHAR vs GIRISH KUMAR MISHRA AND ORS. - Calcutta"]- ["1.Mohomed Thawbeer Mohomed Haneez No. 142 vs Sampath Leasing And Facturing Limited - Supreme Court"]- ["GOPAL CH. SAHA vs MUSTT. KULSUMA KHATUN and ORS - Gauhati"]- ["Sukhendu Sekhar Deb alias Sukhendu Sekhar Dey. S/o Late Jaan Ranjan Deb VS Arun Kumar Bist S/o Late Jang Bahadur Singh Bist - Gauhati"]- ["Sukhendu Sekhar Deb VS Arun Kumar Bist - Current Civil Cases"]- ["Hanjin Shipping Co. Ltd. VS A. Tosh & Sons (I) Ltd. - Current Civil Cases"]
In the realm of civil litigation in India, serving summons on a company can often pose challenges for litigants and process servers alike. Properly effecting service is crucial to ensure the proceedings move forward without delays or challenges on grounds of non-service. A common question arises: SUMMON OF THE COMPANY TO BE SERVED UPON WHOM? This blog post delves into the legal framework, primarily governed by Order 29, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908, providing clarity on valid methods of service, supported by judicial interpretations.
Understanding these rules not only helps plaintiffs avoid procedural pitfalls but also ensures companies receive due notice. Note that while this guide draws from established legal precedents, it is for informational purposes only and does not constitute specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your case.
Under Order 29, Rule 2 of the CPC, service of summons on a corporation is validly effected by delivering it to any of its principal officers, such as the Secretary, Managing Director, or other authorized Principal Officer. This must typically occur at the company's registered office or at a place where the company carries on businessShalimar Rope Works LTD. VS Abdul Hussain H. M. Hasanbhai Rassiwala - 1980 0 Supreme(SC) 256. Courts have consistently upheld this as sufficient, provided it aligns with statutory provisions and judicial standards Sarav Investment & Financial Consultants Pvt. Ltd. VS Llyods Register of Shipping Indian Office Staff Provident Fund - 2007 7 Supreme 575.
Key judicial findings emphasize that such service is recognized as effective, even if the specific officer served did not sign pleadings, as long as proper attempts were made Shalimar Rope Works LTD. VS Abdul Hussain H. M. Hasanbhai Rassiwala - 1980 0 Supreme(SC) 256.
Here are the primary ways to serve summons on a company, backed by case law:
Mere absence of formal acknowledgment does not invalidate service if diligent efforts were proven Sarav Investment & Financial Consultants Pvt. Ltd. VS Llyods Register of Shipping Indian Office Staff Provident Fund - 2007 7 Supreme 575.
The cornerstone is Order 29, Rule 2 CPC, which states service on principal officers at the registered office (or business place if no registered office) is sufficient Shalimar Rope Works LTD. VS Abdul Hussain H. M. Hasanbhai Rassiwala - 1980 0 Supreme(SC) 256. Courts clarify this extends beyond the registered office if served on authorized personnel at business locations Sarav Investment & Financial Consultants Pvt. Ltd. VS Llyods Register of Shipping Indian Office Staff Provident Fund - 2007 7 Supreme 575.
Service on the Secretary, Director, or Principal Officer at the company's registered office or at the place of business if there is no registered office Shalimar Rope Works LTD. VS Abdul Hussain H. M. Hasanbhai Rassiwala - 1980 0 Supreme(SC) 256. This flexibility ensures practicality without compromising fairness.
Registered post to the registered office is a reliable method. The presumption of proper service arises under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act and Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, provided the postal endorsement indicates proper dispatch and receipt Sarav Investment & Financial Consultants Pvt. Ltd. VS Llyods Register of Shipping Indian Office Staff Provident Fund - 2007 7 Supreme 575. Even refused endorsements support validity under certain circumstances.
When principal officers are unavailable, service on employees or agents who acknowledge receipt suffices. Service on employees or agents who are authorized to receive such notices and who acknowledge receipt is also considered valid Sarav Investment & Financial Consultants Pvt. Ltd. VS Llyods Register of Shipping Indian Office Staff Provident Fund - 2007 7 Supreme 575. The focus is on authority and acknowledgment, not the signatory's role in pleadings.
If direct service fails after due diligence, courts may order affixation or publication. In cases where the officer cannot find the company or its officers after exercising due diligence, service by affixation on the company's premises or publication in a widely circulated local newspaper is permissible Visa Coke Limited VS Mesco Kalinga Steel Limited - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 744. This upholds procedural justice.
While the core rules apply in civil suits, similar principles echo in other contexts. For instance, in Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act) cases under Section 138, courts stress arraying the company as accused, with service implications. A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is not maintainable without the principal offender, the company, being arrayed as an accused Kitply Industries VS State of Uttar Pradesh - 2024 Supreme(All) 1097. Here, summoning individuals without the company can flaw proceedings, highlighting service on the entity via proper channels.
In another NI Act ruling, summoning a director was deemed to represent the company: Therefore, by summoning the applicant herein the company is also deemed to have been summoned and served Kishore Shankar Signapurkar VS State Of U. P. - 2024 Supreme(All) 1447. This underscores service on representatives binding the company.
Criminal contexts reinforce vicarious liability: The Company being a juristic person... no summon has been directly issued against the Company-petitioner but in absence of such post, the summon has been served upon the Company Tata Motors Limited VS State of Jharkhand - 2016 Supreme(Jhk) 1055. Proper service remains pivotal.
In partition or revenue matters, refusal reports trigger substituted modes, but due process is key: Service of Summons Rules -- Rr. 51 and 53 -- ... service upon appellant/defendant neither supported... ex parte decree set aside Farrukh Jahan Begam (Dead) Through Lrs. Syed Mohammad Ali vs Mohd. Mahfooz - 2025 Supreme(MP) 522. Improper service invites challenges under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC.
These cases illustrate that across civil, criminal, and statutory proceedings, courts prioritize verifiable service attempts.
Not all attempts qualify as valid service. Watch for these limitations:
In ex-parte scenarios, defendants can seek setting aside if non-service is proven, as in divorce or partition cases where verification lapsed Chittemma Alias Mahadevi D/o Late Nagendrappa VS A. Mallikarjuna - 2019 Supreme(Kar) 1050Gobind VS State of Haryana - 2008 Supreme(P&H) 655.
To ensure robust service:
Courts favor substance over form if efforts are genuine.
In summary, summons on a company is validly served on principal officers at key locations or authorized representatives, ensuring proceedings' integrity. Always adhere to CPC and seek professional guidance to navigate nuances.
References:1. Shalimar Rope Works LTD. VS Abdul Hussain H. M. Hasanbhai Rassiwala - 1980 0 Supreme(SC) 256: Service on directors/secretary/principal officer.2. Sarav Investment & Financial Consultants Pvt. Ltd. VS Llyods Register of Shipping Indian Office Staff Provident Fund - 2007 7 Supreme 575: Registered post, agents, presumptions.3. Visa Coke Limited VS Mesco Kalinga Steel Limited - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 744: Substituted service.
This post is based on general legal principles and precedents as of available data.
#CompanySummons #CPCLaw #LegalService
Krishnaraj Thaker submits that the case there was with regard to handing over a summons to an employee of the corporation/company, who was not authorized to receive the summon would not make the service valid, but in the instant case, the summon was first served upon the company by post at its registered ... Therefore, when the writ of summon was served on November 22, 2024 as would be evident from the Deputy Sheriff’s report on the principal officer....
Section 63 of the Cr.P.C. provides as to how a summon should be served on corporate bodies and societies. ... Section 62 prescribes as to how a summon should be served. Section 62(2) of the Cr.P.C. mandates that, the summon shall, if practicable, be served personally on the person summoned by delivering or tendering to him one of the duplicates of the summons. ... Though notice has validly been served upon O.P. No. 2 but no one turns up on behalf of ....
of the Opposite Party No. 1 to some other place which is absolutely unknown and not being disclosed to the petitioner, as a result whereof the Notice of Summon could not be served upon the Opposite Party No. 1, compelling it to appear before the Learned Court in connection with the above referred Complaint ... Thereafter several steps were taken for Service of Summon upon the Opposite Party No.1 to compel its appearance before the Learned Magistrate including Order of Attachment. 17. ... The petitioner ....
It is the prerogative of the company which has to be summoned in its own name at its registered address and upon such receipt of such summon, the company has to nominate a person of its own choice to represent the company. ... In the instant case petitioners specific case is that no summon has been issued or served at the registered office of the Company. Section 65 of PMLA clearly stipulates that provision of Cr.P.C. shall apply so far the provisio....
It is the prerogative of the company which has to be summoned in its own name at its registered address and upon such receipt of such summon, the company has to nominate a person of its own choice to represent the company. ... In the instant case petitioners specific case is that no summon has been issued or served at the registered office of the Company. Section 65 of PMLA clearly stipulates that provision of Cr.P.C. shall apply so far the provisio....
It has further been observed by the Court below that the address on which the summon has been issued is the address which has been mentioned in the suit and in the Vakalatnama and presumed that when such address was mentioned in the summon, it must have been served on the said address. ... Emphasis has been laid on Rule 51 and 53 of the Rules to state that the service is to be effected on a person against whom it has been issued, whenever it is practicable and Court ought not to proceed ex-parte upon anything short of p....
in the plaint, but skilfully waited till summon is served upon them in compliance with Order 5 Rule1 of CPC. ... Therefore utter negligence on the part of the petitioner to delay the proceeding is well established .At this stage it is necessary to discuss the role played by the Learned Court when admittedly no summon under order 5 rule 1 CPC was served upon the defendants. ... In the instant case, it is alleged that no summons were served upon the d....
In respect of accused No.3, notice sent to him was returned un-served with an endorsement vide Annexure G. Accused No.4 resigned from the company in liquidation itself on 16.07.1998. Notice sent to Accused No.5 was not returned. ... Accused No.6 resigned from the company in liquidation in March, 1998. Notice sent to Accused No.7 was returned un-served with an endorsement ‘not reachable’. Accused No.8 was discharged by this Court. Accused No.9 died. 3. ... LAKSHMAN COMPANY APPLICATION No.276 of 1999 in ....
(x) The judgments relied upon by applicants i.e. N. ... the Company and were equally responsible for dishonour, as such prima-facie allegations against the Company, being principal offender, was part of proceeding since inception and are sufficient to summon the Company also being principal offender as well as other applicants including signatories to the ... (ix) The impugned order has two errors, first impleadment application was not finally decided and secondly, reason assigned to summon#....
be served to the present applicant on behalf of the company. ... Act against the applicant herein has summoned the applicant herein alone, who had signed the cheques and did not summon the company. 6. ... Learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 has further relied upon the judgment of Sarabjit Singh vs. ... Therefore, by summoning the applicant herein the company is also deemed to have been summoned and served, therefore, there is no illegality in the summoning ord....
How summon is to be served is governed by Order 5 of CPC 1908 (1). The same reads as under: 7. Summons.- (1) When a suit has been duly instituted, a summons may be issued to the defendant to appear and answer the claim and to file the written statement of his defence, if any, within thirty days from the date of service of summons on that defendant: Provided that no such summons shall be issued when a defendant has appeared at the presentation of plaint and admitted the plaintiff's claim:
Likewise none of the ingredients responsible to constitute the offence under Section 420 or 120-B of I.P.C. are available on record. If there was any manufacturing defect in the said Car, the responsibility cannot be fastened on a particular post or on employee. The Company being a juristic person, the affairs of the Company is controlled by a group of persons. It is true that no summon has been directly issued against the Company-petitioner but in absence of such post, the summon has been served upon the Company.
The cases of refusal are regulated by Section 20(2). 7. It may also need a notice that Section 20 of the Act makes a special provision in regard to the mode of service, which are slightly different from those contained in Civil Procedure Code. This sub-section provides that if service can not be made or if acceptance of service so made is refused, the summons may be served by posting a copy thereof at the usual or the last known place of residence of the person to whom it is addressed or if that person does not resides in the district in which the Revenue Officer is employed and the case to ....
In that event, the difficulty in the petitioner being proceeded against may not arise at all. Prima facie there appears to be sufficient material to summon the company. For the above reasons it is not possible to hold that not even a prima facie is made out against the petitioner for the offence under Section 67 read with Section 85IT Act. End Note 21. In fact the Supreme Court in Modi Distillery observed that the trial court could overcome such technical objection by directing the arraigning of the company as an accused as otherwise it would be "a travesty of justice."
The cases of refusal are regulated by Section 20(2). 7. It may also need a notice that Section 20 of the Act makes a special provision in regard to the mode of service, which are slightly different from those contained in Civil Procedure Code. Section 20 provides that summon issued by Revenue Officer shall if practicable be served (a) personally on the person to whom it is addressed or failing him (b) his recognised agent or (c) an adult member of his family usually residing with him. This sub-section provides that if service can not be made or if acceptance of service so m....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
