https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306116 Substituted service was invalid because reasonable diligence had not been used to trace the defendant, and the plaintiff failed to attempt service at another known business address before resorting to affixture; the defendant was therefore properly granted leave to enter appearance. An application solely for leave to appear is not a step in the proceedings within Section 19 of the Arbitration Act, 1899, because it does not amount to an election to contest the suit on the merits or to waive arbitration. The court accordingly held that the application did not bar a stay, and the dispute was stayed for arbitration under the contract. en-us Mon, 15 Dec 1924 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 11 Jan 2023 12:40:14 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306116 Substituted service was invalid because reasonable diligence had not been used to trace the defendant, and the plaintiff failed to attempt service at another known business address before resorting to affixture; the defendant was therefore properly granted leave to enter appearance. An application solely for leave to appear is not a step in the proceedings within Section 19 of the Arbitration Act, 1899, because it does not amount to an election to contest the suit on the merits or to waive arbitration. The court accordingly held that the application did not bar a stay, and the dispute was stayed for arbitration under the contract. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 15 Dec 1924 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306116