- (1.) Learned counsel for the petitioner states attempts have been made to serve the respondents on the address given in the master data and even notices were sent to email.
(2.) A visual examination of the packets containing the notices along with a copy of the petition would reveal that the respondents have opened the packets and then the packets have been returned back with an endorsement that there is no such firm. E-mail notices have bounced back but no one has appeared. Therefore, it appears that there is no possibility of serving the respondents by ordinary post and a case for serving the respondents by substituted service is made out. Let steps for substituted be taken in accordance with Rule 38 (4) of NCLT Rules, 2016 read with Order v. Rule 20 CPC. List for further consideration on 24.01.2018.;