Disposed

M/S. Criss Cross v. D.N. Saravanan

Madras HC10 Aug 2017CRP/2813/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order disposes of a Civil Revision Petition challenging a docket order refusing to accept proof of service of notice due to the missing I.A. number on the acknowledgement. The Court held that the omission does not render service defective and remitted the matter for reconsideration regarding one respondent.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petition is disposed of; the matter is remitted to the Trial Court to consider service on the third respondent afresh.

M/S. Criss Cross Vs D.N. Saravanan — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 10.08.2017

¶4

C O R A M

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.GOVINDARAJ

¶6

C.R.P.(PD) NO.2813 OF 2017

¶7

M/s.Criss Cross Logistics Pvt. Ltd., a company registered under the Companies act 1956 and having its office at No.703, B Block, Shivalaya Building, Ethiraj Saai, Egmore, Chennai - 600 008. Rep. by its Authorized Signatory Mr.Sivanesan Paliah ... Petitioner Vs. 1.D.N.Saravanan 2.M/s.S.K.Integrated Logistics Rep. by its Proprietor S.Karthick Having its office at 7/8, 5th Cross, Vidyanagar, Off SKF, Bommasandra, Bangalore - 560 099. 3.Tata Power Company Ltd., Having its office at 42-43, Electronics City, Hosur Road, Bengaluru, Karnataka - 560 100. ... Respondents

¶8

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the docket order dated 18.07.2017 in

¶9

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶10

¶11

I.A.No.7510 of 2017 in O.S.No.3070 of 2017 on the file of the I Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai and consequently declare that the service of notice on the 1st to the 3rd respondents in I.A.No.7510 of 2017 in O.S.No.3070 of 2017 is complete.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.K.F.Manavalan

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the docket order

¶15

dated 18.07.2017 for not accepting the service for not mentioning the I.A.No.7510 of 2017 in the acknowledgement card as well as on the returned cover.

¶16

The petitioner has taken notice to all the three respondents. In so far as the respondents 1 and 3 are concerned, the

¶17

acknowledgement card was received. First respondent filed vakalat. In so

¶18

far as the third respondent is concerned, the Trial Court has refused to accept the acknowledgement card for not mentioning I.A. number on the

¶19

cover and the acknowledgement card. Non mentioning of the number over the cover and acknowledgement card will not render the service on

¶20

the third respondent defective.

¶21

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶22

¶23

The matter is remitted back to the Trial Court to consider

¶24

the service on the third respondent afresh and pass a consequential order. In so far as the second respondent is concerned, it is open to the petitioner to take up the issue of proof of service before the Trial Court.

¶25

With the above observation and direction, the Civil
Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs.
10.08.2017
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
NL/KAS/TK
To
The I Assistant Judge
City Civil Court
Chennai.

¶26

http://www.judis.nic.in

M.GOVINDARAJ, J.

NL/KAS/TK

C.R.P.(PD) NO.2813 OF 2017

¶31

10.08.2017

¶32

http://www.judis.nic.in

M/S. Criss Cross v. D.N. Saravanan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Criss Cross v. D.N. Saravanan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M. Mekala Vs N. Jayalakshmi

M.Kamalakannan Vs K.Govindarajan

The Transport Corpn., Employee Vs S.J. Amarendra

A. Jayanthi Vs T.Kokila

Punjab National Bank Vs R.Radhakrishnan

Dr. N. Anna Reddy Vs Mr. J. Pandian