Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

M/S.VAIBHAV CASTIN (P) LTD. versus WORKMAN COMPENSATION COMMISSIONER & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


M/S.Vaibhav Castin (P) Ltd. v. Workman Compensation Commissioner & Others - WRIT - C No. 30134 of 2000 [2006] RD-AH 11710 (18 July 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

18-07-2006 Hon'ble S.P.Mehrotra, J.

It appears that by the Order dated 8th January, 2003 passed on Civil Misc. Application No. 3412 of 2003, notice was directed to be issued to the petitioner to engage another counsel as Sri Rakesh Tiwari, who had been appearing as the learned counsel for the petitioner, had since been elevated to the Bench of this Court.

Pursuant to the said order dated 8th January, 2003,  it appears that notice was issued to the petitioner fixing 5th February, 2004 by Registered Post A.D.

Reference in this regard may be made to the Office Report dated 18-11-2003 and the Office Report dated 6-10-2004.

The Office further submitted its Reports dated 10-11-2004 and 13-12-2004 regarding service of the said notice issued to the petitioner to engage another counsel.

It was, inter-alia, stated in the said Reports that the notice, sent to the petitioner, had not been received back after service.

In the circumstances, the Court, by its order dated 14-12-2004, directed that fresh notice be issued to the petitioner to engage another counsel, pursuant to the said order dated 8-1-2003.

It further appears that in view of the directions given in the said order dated 14-12-2004, fresh notice was issued to the petitioner to engage another counsel, fixing 7th March, 2005 through Registered Post A.D.

Reference in this regard may be made to the Office Report dated 17-12-2004.

The Office submitted its Report dated 5th March, 2005, inter-alia, stating that neither Acknowledgement Due Card nor undelivered cover in respect of the said fresh notice had been received back after service.

In the circumstances, the Court, by its order dated 7th March, 2005, directed the Office to await service of notice stated to have been issued to the petitioner, pursuant to the said order dated 14-12-2004.

Pursuant to the said order dated 7th March, 2005, the Office submitted its Report dated 24th April, 2006, inter-alia, reiterating that neither undelivered cover nor Acknowledgement Due Card had been returned back after service.

Having regard to the fact that notice has been sent to the petitioner twice by Registered Post A.D., and on both the occasions, neither undelivered cover nor Acknowledgement Due Card has been received back, service of notice on the petitioner is deemed to be sufficient in view of the provisions of Explanation II to Rule 12 of Chapter VIII of the Rules of the Court.

The Office is directed to submit its Report as to whether any learned counsel has put in appearance on behalf of the petitioner in view of sufficient service of notice on the petitioner.

List on 8th August, 2006.

C.M.W.P.No. 30134 of 2000/AK


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.