AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Biswanath Somadder, CJ
In spite of the direction as contained in the order of this Court dated 08th October, 2024, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that service could not be effected at the respondent’s registered office since the postal authorities have returned the envelope with the remark, “insufficient address”.
The learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that from a document annexed to the petition, being Annexure P-1 at page 16, it can be noticed that there is another address provided at the bottom of the respondent’s letter-head. He submits that an opportunity may be given to his client to effect service at the said address.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the instant case, this Court is of the view that a notice together with a copy of the petition may be attempted to be served in the address as appearing at the bottom of the letter-head, being Annexure P-1 at page 16 of the instant petition. In addition thereto, the petitioner may also try and serve the respondent at its local address at Rongli (Pakyong District, Sikkim).
An affidavit of service, indicating service as directed herein, shall be filed on behalf of the petitioner on or before the next date.
Let this matter appear for further consideration on 03rd December, 2024, under an appropriate heading.