1 mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER ORDER NO.288 OF 2011 IN SUIT NO.1598 OF 2000 M/s.Andre CIE PTE Limited Plaintiff versus SGS Societe General and others Defendants Ms.Sneha Phene i/by D.G.Gupta & Co. for plaintiff. None for the defendants. CORAM : S.J.KATHAWALLA, J. DATE : 2nd May 2011 PC : 1. The plaintiff in the present suit moved a chamber order along with an affidavit-in-support of the chamber order before the Additional Prothonotary and Senior Master for discharge of their appearance on behalf of the plaintiff. 2. According to the plaintiff, repeated efforts were made by them to contact the plaintiff by Fax and E-mail seeking instructions from the plaintiff who according to them are based at Singapore. However, they were not successful. The copies of the failure reports of E-mail dated 21st August 2010 is annexed as Annexures-1 to the affidavit in support of the chamber order. According to the advocates for the plaintiff they also tried to contact the plaintiff by E-mail through the plaintiffs associate company Andre & Cie SA in Switzerland, who had earlier been in touch with them. However, the E-mail sent to the said associate company also failed as can be seen from Annexure-2 to the affidavit in support of the chamber order. The Advocates for the plaintiff by a registered acknowledgment due air mail letter dated 23rd August 2010 addressed to 2 the plaintiff and their associate Andre & Cie SA, Switzerland, informed them that they are unable to contact the plaintiff by Fax, E-mail or on phone and sought instructions from them. The packet containing the letter sent to the plaintiff at their Singapore address was received back with remark "Reason for non delivery ... No such name/company". The packet addressed to Andre & Cie SA in Switzerland was also undelivered. Annexures-3 and 4 annexed to the affidavit-in-support of the chamber order are the copies of letters together with the receipt of payment of registered AD letters and copies of the said returned packets together with the remarks of non delivery affixed thereon. 3. By registered AD air mail letter dated 8.7.2010, the advocates for the plaintiff once again made an attempt to call upon the plaintiff to give necessary instructions to them latest by 30.9.2010 failing which the Advocates for the plaintiffs would be constrained to make an application for discharge before this Court and that once they are discharged they would no longer appear on behalf of the plaintiff. Once again the said packet was returned with postal remark "reason for non delivery ... No such name/company". A copy of the letter together with registered AD acknowledgment and the packet returned by the postal authorities is annexed as Annexure-5 collectively to the affidavit in support of the chamber order. The advocates for the plaintiff thereafter by letter dated 11.3.2011 once again forwarded by air mail registered AD a copy of the draft chamber order to the plaintiff at their Singapore address. The said letter is also returned back with the remark "reason for non delivery ... Moved" as can be seen from the affidavit of service dated 11th April 2011. The plaintiff once again vide letters dated 22.3.2011 and 31.3.2011 forwarded the chamber order at the address of the plaintiff at Singapore which were again returned with the remarks "reason for non delivery ... Moved" and "reason for non delivery ... no such names/company" respectively. 4. The learned Additional Prothonotary & Senior Master on 20.4.2011 3 inter alia passed following order :- " In view thereof, Advocate for plaintiffs is directed to serve with Chamber Order returnable before me 29/6/2011 by way of substituted service under the provision of Order V Rule 20 of C.P.C. 1908 by publication or under the provisions of Order V Rule 17 of C.P.C. 1908 by affixing the notice under the provision of 188 of O.S. Rules, returnable on 29/6/2011 upon the outer conspicuous door of last known address of plaintiffs or under the provision of 189-A of O.S.Rule by E-mail, and to file Affidavit of Service to that effect. Adjourned to 29/6/2011." 5. The learned advocate for the plaintiff being aggrieved by the order passed by the Additional Prothonotary & Senior Master has under Rule 133 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules moved present Chamber Summons for setting aside the same and for grant of discharge. The learned advocate for the plaintiff has contended that the plaintiff do not have any credit balance in the account maintained by the advocates. They have made inquiries and are informed that the advertisement cost in the newspaper at Singapore would cost approximately Rs.25,000/- to Rs. 40,000/-. It would be unfair to direct the advocates to go out of pocket and spend the said amount for no fault of theirs. 6. I have considered the submissions advanced by the advocate for the plaintiff. In my view, the advocate for the plaintiff has made sufficient attempts to contact the plaintiff at the last known address and also their sister concern seeking instructions in the matter. However, it appears that the plaintiff has moved out from the address at Singapore which was made available to their advocates without informing them of their whereabouts. The advocates for the plaintiff who do not have any credit balance left in the account of the plaintiff, cannot be called upon to go out of pocket and issue notice to the plaintiff by way of substituted service by 4 spending a huge amount of approximately Rs.25,000/- to Rs.40,000/-. This will be most unfair to any advocate who is not receiving instructions from his clients. For the same reasons affixing of notice at Singapore under the provisions of Rule 188 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules is also not possible. The repeated efforts made by the advocates for the plaintiff to intimate the plaintiff by E-mail, Fax, telephone and letters have failed. The advocates for the plaintiff have therefore made out an appropriate case for discharge of their appearance on behalf of the plaintiff. They are therefore by this order discharged from appearing on behalf of the plaintiff. Place the suit for directions on 4th May 2011. (S.J.KATHAWALLA, J.)