- Court
- High Court of Delhi
- Decided
- 27 October 2016
- Bench
- S. Muralidhar
- Case no.
- O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 191/2016
Follow Delhi High CourtFollow S. Muralidhar
Judgment
O R D E R %
27.10.2016
¶1Counsel for the petitioner has placed before the Court the affidavit of service in which it is stated that there is no sign board of Respondent No.2 at the address of Respondent No.2 as stated in the petition. Even the tracking report of the postal authority states the reason as "Wrong Address/no such Company".
¶2It is open to the petitioner to approach the Registrar of Companies to ascertain the present position regarding Respondents. If any fresh details of the present correct address of the Respondent is available, it will be open to the Petitioner to revive this petition.
¶3The petition and the applications are disposed of in the above terms.
S. MURALIDHAR, J. OCTOBER 27, 2016/VLD
Case details
Parties and counsel
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 38. + O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 191/2016 & IA Nos.20261/2012 & 1632/2016 INDIABULLS HOUSING FINANCE LTD ..... Petitioner Through: Ms. Malvika Lal, Advocate. versus COGENT VENTURES INDIA LTD & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: None. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR
Source: High Court of Delhi, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.