SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2015 Supreme(Del) 3560

MUKTA GUPTA
Randeep Kaur – Appellant
Versus
Ayush Sibal – Respondent


For the Petitioner:Mr. Gurmeet Singh, Ms. Sadhana Somvanshi and Mr. Atul Patni, Advocates.
For the Respondent: None.

JUDGMENT :

1. No notice is required to be issued to the respondent for disposal of the present petition as the issue in the present petition relates to service of summons to the respondent before the learned Trial Court. Since no service was being affected to the respondent the petitioner filed an application under Order 5 Rule 9, CPC for service to the respondent by e-mail/SMS/telephone.

2. The learned Trial Court rejected the said application on the ground that no affidavit had been filed by the plaintiff stating the e-mail address of the defendant and as per Chapter 4 Rule 12 of notification relied upon by the petitioner the affidavit in the aforesaid terms was a must before service. It is further noted that under Rule 13 electronic mail service can be effected through digitally signed process by using a pre-designed template along with the scanned images of the document. As per the available infrastructure at Karkardooma Court the same was not possible.

3. The Delhi High Court vide notification dated 9th February, 2011 notified the Delhi Courts Service of Process by Courier, Fax and Electronic Mail Service (Civil Proceeding Rules) 2010 (in short the Rules). As per Chapter 4 Rule






Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top