<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2004 (7) TMI 682 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199471</link>
    <description>Substituted service under Order 5 Rule 20 CPC is available only when the court records satisfaction, on reasons and materials, that the respondent is evading service or cannot be served in the ordinary way. A litigant cannot demand substituted service as of right merely by filing an application. On the stated facts, the applicant had not complied with the appellate court&#039;s directions for service and sought to proceed according to personal convenience, which was treated as a misuse of judicial process. The writ petition was therefore characterised as an abuse of the process of the Court, and the request for substituted service was held not entertainable as a matter of right.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 08 Jul 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 01 Mar 2018 11:48:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=511074" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (7) TMI 682 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199471</link>
      <description>Substituted service under Order 5 Rule 20 CPC is available only when the court records satisfaction, on reasons and materials, that the respondent is evading service or cannot be served in the ordinary way. A litigant cannot demand substituted service as of right merely by filing an application. On the stated facts, the applicant had not complied with the appellate court&#039;s directions for service and sought to proceed according to personal convenience, which was treated as a misuse of judicial process. The writ petition was therefore characterised as an abuse of the process of the Court, and the request for substituted service was held not entertainable as a matter of right.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 08 Jul 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199471</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>