Case Note & Summary
The appeal was filed by Mayuri Fincap Pvt. Ltd. against an order of the Adjudicating Authority dated 23.09.2025 regarding the service of notice to Metfarb Projects Pvt. Ltd. The Adjudicating Authority had previously directed the Appellant to serve notice, but the notice sent through RPAD was returned, leading to the current appeal. The Appellant's counsel argued that they had complied with the service requirements through both post and email, with the email not bouncing and an affidavit of service filed. The Tribunal noted that despite several orders for service, it remained incomplete. The Tribunal decided that no further notice was required to be issued to the Respondent and allowed the Appellant to effect service by publication in two newspapers, one in English and one in a vernacular language, within four weeks. The Adjudicating Authority was instructed to consider the affidavit of service and publication before proceeding further. The appeal was thus disposed of.
Headnote
A) Company Law - Service of Notice - Substituted Service - National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) Rules, 2016 - The Appellant was permitted to effect service by publication in two newspapers due to incomplete service through previous methods. The court directed that an affidavit of service be filed after publication, allowing the Adjudicating Authority to proceed further in accordance with law. Held that substituted service was necessary in the circumstances (Paras 4-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Appellant should be allowed to effect service by substituted service through publication in newspapers.
Final Decision
The Tribunal permitted the Appellant to effect service by publication in two newspapers, one in English and one in a vernacular language, within four weeks, and directed the Adjudicating Authority to consider the affidavit of service and publication before proceeding further.
Law Points
- Substituted service
- Notice delivery
- Publication in newspapers
