- (1.) This is defendants' second appeals. In this appeal learned counsel for the appellant has sought to argue two points : Firstly that no notice was addressed nor served on the appellant company and secondly, the alteration Nos. 3 and 6 were not material alterations. In regard to the first point, learned counsel drew my attention to Ext. 22, the notice dated 27th January 1968. He urged that this notice was not addressed to the company and was also not served on the company. A perusal of the notice shows that the first party in the notice is the appellant company. Second party in the notice is Shri Munna Lal, who is described as proprietor and Partner of Brij Transport Co. (P) Ltd. It is therefore, clear that the notice was addressed to appellant company. Learned counsel further urged that a perusal of the notice would show that it purported to address itself only to Shri Munna Lal. A perusal of the notice show that the entire circumstance leading to the tendency by the appellant company was recited, merely because in the first line of the notice the use of the words "JO KI AAP SHRI MUNNILAL" would not limit the meaning of the word "AAP" to Shri Munna Lal alone. I have perused the notice and in my opinion, the plea that this notice is addressed to Shri Munna Lal and not to the appellant company, cannot be substantiated.
(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant company cited the case of Tulsi Ram Shaw v. R.C. Pal Ltd., 1953 AIR(Cal) 160 This was a case in which a limited company had taken a premises on rent. Notice to quit was addressed to Shri R.C. Pal Esq. The question for consideration by the Court was whether this was a valid notice to quit. In that case the Court interpreting the notice came to the conclusion that it was a valid notice. It observed in paragraph 28 as follows :- "It will therefore, be insensible, to use the language of Ridley, J. to say that this address in the notice to quit to Sri R.C. Pal, Esqr. was given only to R.C. Pal individually in his individual capacity and not as a Director, especially as Managing Director of the defendant company. Thus R.C. Pal was the duly authorised agent as Managing Director to receive notice on behalf of the defendant company. A company can only receive notice through the hand of a human agency and who could be better than the company's Managing Director himself. It is not necessary, in my opinion for the validity of the notice to say when a letter is addressed to R.C. Pal, Esqr. that it should also have been stated that it was only is his capacity as Director or Managing Director of the company."
(3.) In the present case notice was addressed to the company also and it is not disputed that Shri Munna Lal was the Director of the appellant company. He was, therefore, a proper person to whom the notice was addressed and since the notice was served on him, it will be deemed that the notice was served on the company itself. I, therefore, find no substance in the first point.;