Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sunil Poddar & Ors. Vs. Union Bank of India 2008 II AD (S.C.) 247 to argue that there was no need for the transferee court to issue notice and it is argued that it was the duty of the Union of India/defendant no.1 to appear in the transferee court. In support of the arguments reliance is placed upon para 11 of the judgment and I am reproducing para 11 below, however, I am also reproducing para 10 of the judgment as under:-

7. A reading of the aforesaid paras shows that learned senior counsel for the petitioner is not correct in relying upon the judgment in the case of Sunil Poddar (supra) because in that case after transfer of the suit by this Court to the DRT, summons were issued by the DRT at the addresses of the defendants in the case, but defendants were found to be avoiding service and had changed their address without putting back to notice. After endevour was made to serve the defendants in the suit before the DRT in the ordinary method, thereafter summons were served by publication. Therefore, the facts in the case of Sunil Poddar (supra) are distinguishable because the transferee court had issued a notice to the defendant in the suit before the DRT and in fact had thereafter got the defendants served through publication. Supreme Court in para 11 only refers to the fact that there was no requirement of publication of the summons in the newspaper and there are no observations in the judgment in the case of Sunil Poddar (supra) that the transferee court did not have to issue any notice to the defendants. Therefore, the judgment in the case of Sunil Poddar (supra) will not apply to the facts of the present case.