Allowed

Innoviti Technologies Private Limited v. Rajeev Manchanda

Madras HC8 Jun 2026CMP/13833/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order grants an application for substituted service of notice on the first respondent via newspaper publication due to his absence and the return of service as 'No Such Person' at the provided address.

What did the court decide?

Allowed substituted service of notice on the first respondent via publication in an English or Vernacular newspaper circulating in New Delhi.

Innoviti Technologies Private Limited Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

CMP No. 13833 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 08-06-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU

¶6

CMP No. 13833 of 2026 in

¶7

CMA(PT) SR No. 69804 OF 2025

¶8

Innoviti Technologies Private Limited Tower C, 2nd Floor, Diamond District, Old Airport Road,

¶9

Kodihalli, Bangalore 560008, Karnataka Through its Authorized Representative Ms.Ashita Virmani

¶10

..Applicant(s)

¶11

¶12

Rajeev Manchanda A citizen of India of E-148 East of Kailash, New Delhi 110065.

¶13

Pranay Sinha A Citizen of India of E-6, 2nd Floor, Geetanjali Enclave, New Delhi 110017.

¶14

The Assistant Controller of Patents And Designs Patents Office IPR Building, SIDCO Plot, GST Road, Guindy Chennai 32.

¶15

..Respondent(s)

¶16

Prayer: This application is filed to allow the counsel for the applicant/appellant to carry out the substituted service on the respondent No.1 by way of publication/advertisement in any English Newspaper or Vernacular (Hindi) Newspaper or both which are circulated in and around New Delhi.

¶17

__________ Page1 of 4

¶18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶19

CMP No. 13833 of 2026

¶20

For Appellant(s) : Mr.K.Muthu Selvam For Respondent(s) : Mr.J.Madhanagopal Rao for R3 No appearance for R1 and R2

¶21

ORDER

¶22

This petition is filed to allow the counsel for the applicant/appellant to carry out the substituted service on the respondent No.1 by way of publication/advertisement in any English Newspaper or Vernacular (Hindi) Newspaper or both which are circulated in and around New Delhi.

¶23

Heard the learned counsel for the application

¶24

Since the learned counsel who represented the respondents 1 and 2 in

¶25

the opposition had in the notice of opposition dated 28.11.2025 only shown the address that had been shown in the petition to be their address & the notice which had been attempted to be served had been returned unserved with an

¶26

endorsement “No Such Person”. Despite the efforts of the applicant/appellant, it was unable to serve on the first respondent. Therefore, the applicant had taken up the present application requesting for substituted service on the first respondent.

¶27

The Court being satisfied with the reasons attributed finds no

¶28

__________ Page2 of 4

¶29

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶30

CMP No. 13833 of 2026

¶31

impediment in ordering the application for substitute of service.

¶32

Accordingly, this petition is ordered as prayed for.

¶33

Registry is directed to post the main case in the usual course along with

¶34

C.M.P.No.20301 of 2025.

¶35

08-06-2026

¶36

Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No

¶37

rap

¶38

¶39

Rajeev Manchanda A citizen of India of E-148 East of Kailash, New Delhi 110065. 2.

¶40

Pranay Sinha A Citizen of India of E-6, 2nd Floor, Geetanjali Enclave, New Delhi 110017.

¶41

The Assistant Controller of Patents And Designs Patents Office IPR Building, SIDCO Plot, GST Road, Guindy Chennai 32.

¶42

__________ Page3 of 4

¶43

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶44

CMP No. 13833 of 2026

¶45

K.KUMARESH BABU, J.

¶46

rap

¶47

CMP No. 13833 of 2026 in CMA(PT) SR No. 69804 of 2025

¶48

08-06-2026

¶49

__________ Page4 of 4

¶50

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Innoviti Technologies Private Limited v. Rajeev Manchanda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Innoviti Technologies Private Limited v. Rajeev Manchanda

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

K.R.Venkatesan Vs C.Rukkammal

M/s.Shrinithi Capital Finance Co. Vs S.Umamheshwari

M.Ayiera Muthu Solaimalai, Vs The Official Liquidator

Ms G Nalini Sole Proprietor Vs Mr K Ganesh Proprietor

Cosmos Cooperative Bank Ltd. Vs Shanmugam Rajasekar and another

Bnp Paribas Vs Mizuho Ra Leasing Private Limited