Delhi High Court
Logix Infosoft Private Ltd. vs Cb Richard Ellis South Asia ... on 25 February, 2014
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW 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)
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.
FAO 81/2012 Page 1 of 4
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".
FAO 81/2012 Page 2 of 4
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
FAO 81/2012 Page 3 of 4
appellant relies upon a Form-18 which was said to be submitted to the
Registrar of companies, however, this aspect has not been mentioned in 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
