AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
D.A. Mehta, J.—Though the reference was filed in 2000 notice has remained unserved in so far as the respondent-Company is concerned. Accordingly, on 11.02.2009 the applicant was permitted to effect direct service as prayed for by the learned advocate for the applicant and fresh notice was issued making the same returnable on 24.02.2009.
On 04.03.2009 the Court took note of the fact that the applicant could not effect direct service and the inspector of the applicant-department had effected service by affixture, without obtaining any directions for substituted service of the Court. Accordingly, one more opportunity to effect direct service was granted and a fresh notice was issued making it returnable on 24.03.2009.
Thereafter, when the matter came up on 08.04.2009 the Court took note of the fact that till that date no service had been effected on the respondent and hence, prayer for time was granted.
Today the record reveals that as per affidavit of service the notice has been returned unserved with remarks from the postal authorities that ''the premises are closed and the Company is not traceable''. In fact the remark in Gujarati reads that ''the Company is closed''.
In light of the aforesaid circumstances, it would serve no purpose in keeping the matter pending awaiting details from the applicant for effecting substituted service in the form of a public notice as prayed for by the learned advocate for the applicant, because the applicant is not in a position to tender details as to the names of the directors of the respondent-Company.
Hence, the reference is left unanswered and stands disposed of accordingly, leaving it open to the applicant to move an appropriate application for revival within a reasonable time, if the circumstances so warrant.