M/S. Aafloat Textiles (India) Limited v. M/S. Maneca Industries
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court disposed of an application for substitute service as infructuous because the respondent had put in an appearance.
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.
caa 118-17doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 118 OF 2017
in
APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 553 OF 2016
Aafloat Textiles (India) Ltd.
..Applicant
v/s.
M/s. Maneca Industries
..Respondents
Mr. Dinesh Kumar Dubey for the Applicant. Mr. Nikhil Pujari i/b. R. N. Joshi for the Respondent.
CORAM : SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J. DATED : 23rd JUNE, 2017.
P.C.
(ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.)
1 of 1
pps
Aafloat Textiles (India) Ltd.
M/s. Maneca Industries
Anuja Prabhu Desai
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court