<?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>1906 (9) TMI 1 - Bombay High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291034</link>
    <description>Service of summons by affixation on the outer door was invalid because the bailiff&#039;s report and affidavit did not show that affixation was justified under the Civil Procedure Code. The record only showed that the respondent could not be found, without any adequate attempt to trace him or proper enquiry from his son about his whereabouts. As the procedural requirements for substituted service were not satisfied, the notice was directed to be sent down for proper service.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 05 Sep 1906 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 26 Oct 2020 14:06:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=626178" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1906 (9) TMI 1 - Bombay High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291034</link>
      <description>Service of summons by affixation on the outer door was invalid because the bailiff&#039;s report and affidavit did not show that affixation was justified under the Civil Procedure Code. The record only showed that the respondent could not be found, without any adequate attempt to trace him or proper enquiry from his son about his whereabouts. As the procedural requirements for substituted service were not satisfied, the notice was directed to be sent down for proper service.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 05 Sep 1906 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291034</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>