Allowed

Telepathy , Inc. v. Dircti Internet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. and 4 Ors.

Bombay HC17 Jul 2012APP/415/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An appeal challenging the Single Judge's refusal to extend an ad-interim order due to alleged insufficient proof of service. The High Court found the affidavit-supported delivery report from a courier sufficient. The appeal was allowed, and the ad-interim order was extended.

What did the court decide?

The ad-interim order of 21 March 2012 in Arbitration Petition No.342 of 2012 is extended till further orders.

Telepathy , Inc. Vs Dircti Internet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. and 4 Ors. — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2012)

kambli

Appl415.12

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY.

¶5

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶6

APPEAL NO.415 OF 2012 IN

¶7

ARBITRATION PETITION NO.342 OF 2012

¶8

Telepathy Inc. ...Appellant v/s. Directi Internet Solutions Pvt.Ltd. & ors. ...Respondents

¶9

Mr.Nishad Nadkarni i/b Legasis Partner for Appellant. Mr.Sachin Chindarkar i/b N.C.Walimbe for Respondents Nos. 2 & 3.

¶10

CORAM: MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. & N.M. JAMDAR, J. DATE : 31 July 2012.

¶11

P.C.

¶12

This appeal is directed against an order dated 27 April 2012 of the learned single Judge declining to accept the service of notice on the respondents as valid service and refusing to extend the ad-interim order passed earlier on the ground that despite adequate opportunity the appellant/petitioner had not proved service and the order obtained exparte cannot be extended without giving an opportunity of hearing to the respondents.

¶13

On 27 April 2012 itself, the appellant had moved this Court and we had issued notice and extended ad-interim relief which was earlier granted by the learned single Judge.

1 of 1

kambli 2

Appl415.12

Affidavit of service has been filed by the clerk of the advocate for the appellant. Having gone through the said affidavit of service, we are satisfied that the notice issued by this Court was served upon respondents Nos. 1 to 5. It appears that the appellant has, in Arbitration Petition No.342 of 2012, sought reliefs mainly against respondents Nos. 1 and 5. Since both the respondents are served with a notice of this appeal, we proceed to take up the appeal for final disposal.

¶18

Having gone through the affidavits dated 11 April 2012 and 27 April 2012 of Mr.Dilip Palwankar, which were filed before the learned single Judge, we are satisfied that the appellant/petitioner had effected service of the arbitration petition and the order dated 21 March 2012 upon respondents Nos.1 & 5 and the other respondents. Service was effected through Blue Dart courier services and the packet was delivered to respondent No.5 on 23 March 2012. The clerk of the advocate of the appellant had produced with his affidavit a copy of the airway bill issued by the courier and the copy of the delivery report downloaded from the website of the courier stating that the packet was delivered to respondent No.5 on 23 March 2012. Similarly, the packet containing a notice addressed to respondent No.1 was also served upon the respondent No.1 through the same courier on 23 March 2012. The airway bill issued by the said courier addressed to respondent No.1 as well as the copy of delivery report downloaded from the website of the courier stating that the packet was delivered to respondent No.1 on 23 March 2012 was also produced along with the affidavit.

2 of 2

Appl415.12

kambli

In our view, the service of copy of the petition and the order passed by the learned single Judge on 21 March 2012 on the arbitration petition in the above manner was sufficient for the purpose of extending the ad-interim injunction on the returnable date and the learned single Judge was not justified in refusing to extend the ad-interim injunction.

¶24

Whether production of the delivery report downloaded from the website of the courier should be considered as sufficient service for the purpose of passing an exparte decree is not a question that arises in the present proceedings and therefore, we may not be treated to have made any general observations about the sufficiency or otherwise of proof of service for the purpose of passing an exparte decree.

¶25

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Ad-interim order passed by the learned single Judge in arbitration petition No.342 of 2012 on 21 March 2012 shall stand extended till further orders. Arbitration petition shall now be placed before the learned single Judge for further hearing.

¶26

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶27

(N.M. JAMDAR, J.)

¶28

3 of 3

Telepathy , Inc. v. Dircti Internet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Telepathy , Inc. v. Dircti Internet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Peter Edward Gomes (Since Deceased) John Edward Gomes Vs Mark Edward Gomes

Rajesh Laxmichand Udeshi @ Bhatia, Vs Pravin Hiralal Shah

Wonder Valie Realty Developers Pvt.Ltd. Vs Sunil Bagoji Kalsukar and 5 Ors.

Hindustan Unilever Ltd. Vs Ashique Chemicals and Anr.

The Bank of New York Mellon Vs Zenith Infotech Ltd. and 5 Ors.

Sat Prakash Omprakash Gupta Vs Prakash Packers and Movers Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.