This order notes insufficient service of notice on specific respondents and directs the issuance of fresh notices to those particular parties within a week.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 6
Case :- SECOND APPEAL No. - 102 of 2024
Appellant :- Vivek Agarwal And Another Respondent :- Ashish Kumar Maurya And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Rakesh Kumar Srivastava
Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar,J.
As per office report, the service of notice on the respondent no.2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9 to 22, 30 and 31 is sufficient and deemed sufficient on the respondent no.8 and 29.
Service is not sufficient on the respondent nos.1, 4 and 23 to 28.
Issue fresh notices to the respondent nos.1, 4, and 23 to 28.
Steps within a week.
List with service report.
...................................................................(Rajnish Kumar, J.) Order Date :- 24.7.2024 Haseen U.
Digitally signed by :- HASEENUDDIN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
Vivek Agarwal
Ashish Kumar Maurya
Rajnish Kumar
Haseen U.
As recorded by the court registry
6 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
