L & T Finance Ltd. filed a company petition against Brij Bhushan Singhal. The Respondent's counsel stated that service was not affected against the Respondent. Upon verification of the e-filing, it was noticed that service proof was on page 588, but the volume consisting of page 588 was not seen in the e-filing. Only volume-1 was present, consisting of pages 199. The court was unsure whether service had been affected by the applicant.
L & T Finance Ltd. filed a company petition against Brij Bhushan Singhal. The respondent's counsel claimed that service was not properly effected. The court examined the e-filing and found that while the index indicated service proof on page 588, the volume containing that page was missing. Upon verification with the applicant's counsel present, the court confirmed that the respondent had not been served before the petition was filed. This lack of proper service was the key fact leading to the dismissal of the petition.
Sign in to view the parties.
Order delivered on…
L & T Finance Ltd. filed a company petition against Brij Bhushan Singhal. The Respondent's counsel stated that service was not affected against the Respondent. Upon verification of the e-filing, it was noticed that service proof was on page 588, but the volume consisting of page 588 was not seen in the e-filing. Only volume-1 was present, consisting of pages 199. The court was unsure whether service had been affected by the applicant.
L & T Finance Ltd. filed a company petition against Brij Bhushan Singhal. The respondent's counsel claimed that service was not properly effected. The court examined the e-filing and found that while the index indicated service proof on page 588, the volume containing that page was missing. Upon verification with the applicant's counsel present, the court confirmed that the respondent had not been served before the petition was filed. This lack of proper service was the key fact leading to the dismissal of the petition.
Order delivered on…