The High Court of Delhi dismissed the petition in limine challenging the trial court's order denying permission for substituted service under CPC Order V Rule 20, citing insufficient efforts to ascertain correct addresses.
The petition challenging the dismissal of the substituted service application was dismissed in limine.
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.
$~33
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on:- 8th May, 2018
VEENA BAHL & ORS. ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. Mohit Chaudhary & Mr. Kunal Sachdeva, Advs.
versus
MANMOHAN BAHL & ORS. ..... Respondent Through:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
ORDER (ORAL)
Page 1 of 3
C.R.P.97/2018
Delhi”, the transfers of shares held in her name also having been questioned. Noticeably, the address of sixth respondent is shown to be same as that of the seventh respondent. The summons issued in her name at the said address, intended to be served through the company, however, returned. On the request of the petitioners, directions were given to the seventh respondent to disclose the last known address of the sixth respondent and in response it was stated that, as per the company record, she was resident of A-2, Jangpura Extension, New Delhi – 110014. It is the petitioner’s case that this information is incorrect as the said property of Jangpura Extension used to be the address of the plaintiffs.
Page 2 of 3
C.R.P.97/2018
being asked, conceded that no effort has been made to ascertain better particulars of the sixth respondent from the office of Registrar of Companies where also such information may be available.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
MAY 08, 2018
nk
Page 3 of 3
C.R.P.97/2018
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a prima facie case is made out for substituted service by publication in the present proceedings.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Veena Bahl & Ors.
Manmohan Bahl & Ors.
R.K. Gauba
Justice R.K. Gauba
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
