Skip to main content

Order 29 CPC - Code of Civil Procedure - SUITS BY OR AGAINST CORPORATIONS

 Order 29 CPC Description

1. Subscription and verification of pleading


In suits by or against a corporation, any pleading may be signed and verified on behalf of the corporation by the security or by any director or other principal officer of the corporation who is able to depose to the facts of the case.


HIGH COURT AMENDMENTS


Andhra Pradesh.-Same as in Madras.


Kerala.-In Order XXIX, after rule 1, insert rule 1A which is same as in Madras with the addition of the following as marginal note:-


"Time to be fixed in the summons for appearance in suits against local authority".


[Vide Notification No. Bl-3312/58, dated 7th April, 1959.]


Madras.-In Order XXIX, after rule 1, insert the following rule, namely:-


"1A. In suits against a local authority the Court in fixing the day for the defendant to appear and answer shall allow not less than two months time between the date of summons and the date for appearance."


2. Service on corporation


Subject to any statutory provision regulating service of process, where the suit is against a corporation, the summons may be served-


(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.


STATE AMENDMENT


Uttar Pradesh.-In Order XXIX, in rule 2, after clause (a), insert the following clause, namely;-


"(aa) on its corporation pleader in the district where the Court issuing summons is located, if one has been appointed and the appointment has been notified to the District Judge under rule 10 of Order XXVII, or".


[Vide Uttar Pradesh Act 57 of 1976, sec. 12 fw.e.f. 1-1-1977}.]


HIGH COURT AMENDMENT


Karnataka.-In Order XXIX, after rule 2, insert the following rule, namely;-


"2A. Where the suit is against a local authority the Court in fixing the day for such authority to answer the plaint shall allow a reasonable time for the necessary communication with any department of the Government and for the issue of the necessary instruction to the pleader of the authority, and may extend the time at its discretion."


[Vide R.O.C. 2526 of 1959, dated 9th February, 1967.]


3. Power to require personal attendance of officer of corporation.


The Court may, at any stage of the suit, require the personal appearance of the secretary or of any director, or other principal officer of the corporation who may be able to answer material questions relating to the suit.


Order XXIX


SUITS BY OR AGAINST CORPORATIONS


1. Subscription and verification of pleading


In suits by or against a corporation, any pleading may be signed and verified on behalf of the corporation by the security or by any director or other principal officer of the corporation who is able to depose to the facts of the case.


HIGH COURT AMENDMENTS


Andhra Pradesh.-Same as in Madras.


Kerala.-In Order XXIX, after rule 1, insert rule 1A which is same as in Madras with the addition of the following as marginal note:-


"Time to be fixed in the summons for appearance in suits against local authority".


[Vide Notification No. Bl-3312/58, dated 7th April, 1959.]


Madras.-In Order XXIX, after rule 1, insert the following rule, namely:-


"1A. In suits against a local authority the Court in fixing the day for the defendant to appear and answer shall allow not less than two months time between the date of summons and the date for appearance."


2. Service on corporation


Subject to any statutory provision regulating service of process, where the suit is against a corporation, the summons may be served-


(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.


STATE AMENDMENT


Uttar Pradesh.-In Order XXIX, in rule 2, after clause (a), insert the following clause, namely;-


"(aa) on its corporation pleader in the district where the Court issuing summons is located, if one has been appointed and the appointment has been notified to the District Judge under rule 10 of Order XXVII, or".


[Vide Uttar Pradesh Act 57 of 1976, sec. 12 fw.e.f. 1-1-1977}.]


HIGH COURT AMENDMENT


Karnataka.-In Order XXIX, after rule 2, insert the following rule, namely;-


"2A. Where the suit is against a local authority the Court in fixing the day for such authority to answer the plaint shall allow a reasonable time for the necessary communication with any department of the Government and for the issue of the necessary instruction to the pleader of the authority, and may extend the time at its discretion."


[Vide R.O.C. 2526 of 1959, dated 9th February, 1967.]


3. Power to require personal attendance of officer of corporation.


The Court may, at any stage of the suit, require the personal appearance of the secretary or of any director, or other principal officer of the corporation who may be able to answer material questions relating to the suit.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske
1 comment
Read more

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree
Post a Comment
Read more