1 notice37-11.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE NO.37 OF 2011 IN EXECUTION APPLICATION NO.1 OF 2011 IN ARBITRATION CASE NO.22 OF 2002-03 M/s.Adarsh Textile Industries .. Plaintiffs Versus M/s.M.Danmal .. Defendant Mr.Maganlal Parmar plaintiff in person CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. 14th September 2011. P.C.: 1] Heard learned Advocate for plaintiff – decree holder. My attention is invited to the joint affidavit of service and it is stated that the person who has acknowledged receipt of this notice is one Mr.Anil Jain and he is proprietor of the defendant. He is none other than the person with whom plaintiff had dealings. Therefore, whatever he may have stated in his letter addressed to the Execution Department of this Court is incorrect. If this was not the position, he would not have acknowledged receipt of letter which was sent through a professional courier. 2 notice37-11.doc 2] In these circumstances, I proceed on the basis that the judgment debtor-defendant is duly served and he has failed to show cause as to why this notice should not be made absolute. In the light of the report of the bailiff attached to the office of Sheriff of Mumbai, this notice is made absolute. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)