Disposed

V.Gnanasekaran v. The Authorised Officer

Madras HC11 Oct 2017WMP/27304/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court, Division Bench, granted permission to the petitioner for substituted service of notice on the fourth respondent via newspaper publication in 'Malai Murasu' and 'News Today' due to failed personal service attempts.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to effect substituted service by way of paper publication in 'Malai Murasu' (vernacular) and 'News Today' (English).

V.Gnanasekaran Vs The Authorised Officer — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

( Special Original Jurisdiction )

¶3

Wednesday, the Eleventh day of October Two Thousand Seventeen

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON`BLE MR JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON`BLE MR JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR

¶8

WMP No.27304 of 2017

¶9

IN WP.17988/2017

¶10

V.GNANASEKARAN [ PETITIONER ]

¶11

¶12

1 THE AUTHORISED OFFICER THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK, NIAGRA APARTMENTS, NO.1, STERLING ROAD, NUNGAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI-34

¶13

[ RESPONDENTS]

¶14

2 THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK REP. BY ITS SENIOR MANAGER, ARAKKONAM 631 001

¶15

3 N.GANESH

¶16

4 G.N.RAMESH

¶17

5 THE REGISTRAR DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI

¶18

Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the affidavit filed therewith the High Court will be pleased to order substituted service by way of paper publication in respect of the 4th respondent / 4th respondent any Tamil Daily and English Daily circulated at Chennai in (WMP No.27304 of 2017 IN WP.17988/2017).

¶19

Order : This petition coming on for orders upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of M/S.S.SHANMUGAM, Advocate for the petitioner and of M/S.E.KUMAR, Advocate for 1 & 2^nd for the Respondents the court made the following order:-

¶20

(Order of the Court was made by S.Manikumar,J)

¶21

Petitioner has sought for a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to call for the records of the fifth respondent, relating to the order, dated 22/2/2017, passed in R.A.(SA) No.176 of 2012, in setting aside the order,dated 19/10/2012, passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal - III, Chennai, in S.A.No.242 of 2010.

¶22

Respondent Nos.3 and 4 are the joint auction purchasers. Though respondent No.3 has been served, as per the Registry's note, no vakalat has been filed. Hence name of the respondent No.3 is shown in the cause list.

¶23

According to the petitioner, as well as Mr.E.Kumar, learned counsel for the Bank, though respondent No.4 is residing in the address, mentioned in the writ petition, evades receipt of the notice. As per the Registry's note, notice on the fourth respondent is returned, with an endorsement "left". Private notice sent by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is also returned with an endorsement "no such person".

¶24

In the above said circumstances, petitioner has taken out the instant W.M.P.No.27304 of 2017, seeking permission to effect substituted service, by way of paper publication, on the fourth respondent, in Tamil and English newspapers, widely circulated in Chennai.

¶25

5. We have perused the Registry's note, on the batta memo, postal covers and the affidavit of service filed by the writ petitioner.

¶26

6. Satisfied with the reasons assigned in the supporting affidavit.

¶27

7. Accordingly, permission is granted to the writ petitioner, to effect substituted service, by way of paper publication in "Malai Murasu" (vernacular) and News Today (English), setting out the details of the prayer sought for in W.P.No.17988 of 2017 and specifically mentioning the date of next hearing as 25/10/2017. Publication shall be effected well in advance.

¶28

8. After effecting publication, learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to submit copies of the newspapers to the Registry.

¶29

9. If any vakalat is filed, on behalf of the fourth respondent, same shall be put up.

¶30

10. Registry is directed to print the name of the fourth respondent.

¶31

11. Post on 25/10/2017. Interim order already granted is extended till then.

-sd/-

11/10/2017

/ TRUE COPY /

Sub Assistant Registrar ( Statistics / C.S. ) High Court, Madras - 600 104.

¶36

¶37

1 THE AUTHORISED OFFICER THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK, NIAGRA APARTMENTS, NO.1, STERLING ROAD, NUNGAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI-34

¶38

2 THE SENIOR MANAGER,

¶39

SOUTH INDIAN BANK ARAKKONAM 631 001

¶40

C.C. to M/S.A.GOPINATH Advocate on payment of necessary charges

¶41

The Government Advocate, High Court, Madras - 104.

Order

WMP.27304/2017

WP.17988/2017

Date :11/10/2017

From 26.2.2001 the Registry is issuing certified copies of the Interim Orders in this format ADD 23.10.2017

V.Gnanasekaran v. The Authorised Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Gnanasekaran v. The Authorised Officer

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

The State of Tamil Nadu Vs Tvl.Ivrcl Infrasturcture and

M/s.S.L.T.Farms (P) Ltd., Vs The Authorized Officer

Tvl. Gurusamy Agencies, Vs Deputy Commercial Tax Officer

M.Lilly Vs the District Collector

Deputy Director, Directorate Vs Shri Ramesh Pothy

Suriyan Benefit Fund (Madras) Vs M/s.Icici Bank Ltd.