ORAL JUDGMENT

On 10th June, 1994 an article was published in the Daily Edition of the Economic Times. The article, according to the plaintiff, contained statements which were defamatory. On 8th September, 1994, the plaintiff instituted proceedings before the High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division in the U.K. for seeking damages for libel and an injunction in respect of the publication of the defamatory article. Service of those proceedings was effected on Mr. Umesh Chandrasekhar, who according to the plaintiff, was the resident representative of the defendant in Great Britain and authorized to accept service of process. The defendant did not enter appearance in the proceedings in London. On 5th June, 1995, an affidavit was filed by the plaintiff’s Solicitor, Mr. Peter Edward Marrow, in the firm of Tanners in order to seek a direction that service effected upon Mr. Umesh Chandrasekhar was effective service upon the defendant and that a judgment be entered, in default of defence, with damages to be assessed.

2. Four orders came to be passed by the High Court of Justice on 21st September, 1995, 27th September, 1995, 16th June, 1998 and 11th May, 1999. By the first o