Karnataka High Court
Mr {Name-Redacted} vs Dell International Service India on 29 August, 2018
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2018 KAR 508
Author: Chief Justice
Bench: Dinesh Maheshwari
W.P.No.23522/2018
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2018
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI, CHIEF JUSTICE
WRIT PETITION NO.23522 OF 2018 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
MR. {Name-Redacted}
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
S/O LATE S.NARAYANASWAMY NAIDU
R/AT NO.1/1, KASTLE GRACE
APARTMENT G01, ESHWARA LAYOUT
15TH CROSS, 2ND STAGE
INDIRANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 038
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.DHANANJAY VIDYAPATI JOSHI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. DELL INTERNATIONAL SERVICE INDIA
PRIVATE LIMITED
NO.12/1, 12/2A, 13/1A
DIVYASHREE GREENS
KORAMANGALA INNER RING ROAD
DOMLUR POST
BENGALURU - 560 071
2. DELL INCORPORATED
NO.12/1, 12/2A, 13/1A
DIVYASHREE GREENS
KORAMANGALA INNER RING ROAD
DOMLUR POST
BENGALURU - 560 071
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.GANAPATHI HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
---
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 19.04.2018 (VIDE ANNEXURE-A)
PASSED BY THE HON'BLE PRINCIPAL CITY CIVIL AND
W.P.No.23522/2018
-2-
SESSION JUDGE, BENGALURU IN O.S.NO.677 OF 2017 AND
CONSEQUENTLY TO HOLD THAT THE SERVICE OF THE SUIT
SUMMONS ON THE RESPONDENT NO.2 IS SUFFICIENT AND
ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT, MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record.
The present petition appears to be rather than an unnecessary one. The civil suit (O.S.No.677/2017) is filed by the plaintiff/petitioner, while arraying the defendants with the following particulars:
1. Dell International Services India Private Limited No.12/1, 12/2A, 13/1A Divyashree Greens Koramangala Inner Ring Road Domlur Post Bengaluru - 560 071
2. Dell Incorporated No.12/1, 12/2A, 13/1A Divyashree Greens Koramangala Inner Ring Road Domlur Post Bengaluru - 560 071 W.P.No.23522/2018 -3- The appearance has been put on behalf of the defendant No.1, but it is asserted on its behalf that the defendant No.2 is a separate entity and the address as stated (which is in fact the address of defendant No.1) is not the correct one as regards the defendant No.2.
The summons sought to be served on the given address as regards the defendant No.2 were returned by the defendant No.1 and then, a memo was filed on behalf of the defendant No.1, inter alia¸ with the submissions that "the summons may be issued to the defendant No.2 at the correct address".
The plaintiff raised objections against the memo so filed, while asserting that such was the only address known to him and he was entitled to array the parties and supply the particulars as available with him; and he cannot be forced to serve the defendant No.2 on any other address, which was not even available.
The Trial Court has accepted such submissions on behalf of the defendant No.1 and directed the plaintiff "to take separate steps against the defendant No.2 as per law". W.P.No.23522/2018 -4-
Upon this Court posing a query to learned counsel for the defendant No.1, if the so-called correct address of the defendant No.2 could be supplied by him, learned counsel for the defendant No.1, though has initially attempted to justify the memo moved but then, has frankly submitted that instead of standing on ceremonies, the address of the defendant No.2, as known to the defendant No.1, shall be supplied in the Trial Court within seven days from today.
Upon supplying of such address, the plaintiff may take steps for service on the defendant No.2 in accordance with law.
No further order being required herein, the petition stands disposed of.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE AHB