Vishal Film Factory v. Nayanish B Aravandekar and another
Case brief
What is this about?
in C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.15 of 2021…
A compact analysis
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.
A.No.3166 of 2021 in C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.15 of 2021
DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.
Service to the first defendant awaited. The private notices sent to the first defendant returned as 'unclaimed' and 'not known'. Hence, the plaintiff has filed application for substitute service through paper publication.
2.In view of the fact that the first defendant is carrying on business in Mumbai, the steps to serve notice through Court is delayed. Hence, the request of the plaintiff to take substitute service is allowed. The plaintiff shall take substitute service by way of paper publication in one issue of “Times of India”, Mumbai Edition for the hearing date 22.11.2021.
Call the matter on 22.11.2021.
vri
08.10.2021
Coram
DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court