SAHIDULLAH MUNSHI
TEPCON INTERNATIONAL (INDIA) LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent
The report of Deputy Sheriff dated 23.11.2017 reveals that personal service has already been effected upon the defendant no. 1 and 2 respectively on 23.9.2016 and 18.10.2016 Since there was no service upon the defendant no.3 an order was passed earlier for re-lodging the service of summons upon defendant no.3, Mr. Mukherjee appearing for plaintiff, submits that steps have been taken but no report has been furnished by the department as yet with regard to the service upon defendant no. 3. Let the department furnish a report with regard to the fate of service on the defendant no. 3.
Mr. Mukherjee appearing for the plaintiff submits that according to the High Court Original Side Rules time to file written statement is 21 days and that time expired long ago. No application is also forthcoming praying for any extension. Mr. Sinha Roy, learned Counsel for defendant nos. 1 and 2 submits that sometime may be granted to enable his client to file written statement. However, it may be recorded that on 2.1.2018 a similar prayer was made by Mr. Sinha Roy and the matter was adjourned but till date neither any application is forthcoming praying for leave to file written statement nor pra
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.