Allowed¶26

David Arul v. Michael Arul

Madras HC7 Apr 2026CMP/9057/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Substituted service; paper publication; Order XLI Rule 14 CPC; Section 151 CPC; Order 5 Rule 20 CPC; notice returned 'no such person'; Indian Express publication; Madras High Court; C.M.P.No. 9057 of 2026 in A.S.No. 550 of 2023; David Arul v. Michael Arul; Advent Computer Services Ltd.; Tecways India Pvt. Ltd.; Temple Financial Consultants Private Limited; G.Thyagarajan; order dated 07.04.2026; hearing on 02.06.2026.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to serve respondent Nos. 3 and 4 by substituted service through paper publication in any one issue of Indian Express on or before 17.04.2026, for the hearing on 02.06.2026. ¶26

David Arul Vs Michael Arul — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 07.04.2026

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V. KARTHIKEYAN AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR

¶6

C.M.P.No. 9057 of 2026 IN

¶7

A.S.No. 550 of 2023

¶8

David Arul

¶9

S/o. Mr.Michael Arul

¶10

... Petitioner/Appellant

¶11

¶12

Michael Arul S/o. F.V.Arul

¶13

M/s. Temple Financial Consultants Private Limited Rep. by its Managing Director Ashok Arthur Jaipal

¶14

Advent Computer Services Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director Michael Arul

¶15

Tecways India Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Chief Executive Officer Suzanee Gerl having its Registered Office at: No.46, LDG Road, Little Mount, Nandanam, Chennai – 600 015.

¶16

Mr.G.Thyagarajan

¶17

... Respondents/Respondents

¶18

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

¶19

¶20

PRAYER: This Petition has been filed under Order XLI Rule 14 read with Section 151 of CPC and under Order 5 Rule 20 of CPC, to order substituted service to respondent Nos. 3 and 4 by way of News Paper Publication. ***

¶21

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.Parthasarathy Senior Advocate for Mr. Rahul Balaji

¶22

ORDER

¶23

This Petition has been filed seeking permission to serve the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 through paper publication by way of substituted service.

¶24

It is seen from the records that earlier notice had been returned as

¶25

no such person and thereafter again, notice had been returned with the same endorsement. The Court had granted permission to effect service through substituted service by order dated 30.03.2026.

¶26