21 7 14

CS No.
419/14
21.07.2014
Present: One Sh. Sandeep Kumar, stated to be one of the employee of
the plaintiff is present in person.
No amended plaint has been filed in spite of the last directions, and no
sufficient cause is being assigned.
However, only in the interest of justice, one last opportunity is
extended for filing the amended plaintiff.
List again for further consideration on 05.08.2014 at 2.00 PM.

(SUJATA KOHLI)
Additional District Judge
SK West: Delhi:21.07.2014
CS No. 41/14
21.07.2014
Present: None.
In the interest of justice, list again only for consideration on
24.07.2014 at 2.00 PM.

(SUJATA KOHLI)
Ex. No. 66/14
21.07.2014
Present: Counsel for DH.
Fresh execution filed directly. It be checked and registered.
He is making a submission that vide an Order of the Hon'ble High
Court, the appeal has been dismissed as withdrawn before the Hon'ble High
Court.
However, no certified copy of such Order has been filed on
record nor any official copy of such Order has been received in this respect till
date.
Since, Ld. Counsel for DH is now praying for issuance of
warrant of possession, let Nazir furnish his up to date report in respect
of any Order received from the Hon'ble High Court or not.
In the meantime, it is noted that up to date affidavit of the DH is
already on record being filed on 18.07.2014.
However, subject to the Nazir's up to date report to be filed,
let warrants of possession be issued with respect to the suit property
i.e. Flat No. 20, Top Floor, Milansar Apartments, Paschim Vihar, New
Delhi, on filing of PF (to be filed within three working days from today).
DH is directed to accompany the Bailiff to the spot.
DH is directed to appear before Ld. ACJ on 30.07.2014 at 2.00
PM.
Put up before this Court for report on 08.08.2014.

(SUJATA KOHLI)
Ex. No. 67/14
21.07.2014
Present: Counsel for DH alongwith DH.
As per the affidavit of the DH, and as per the up date report of the
Nazir, there is no Order of stay from any Appellate Court whatsoever.
Since the decree is relating to a shop in question located on the
ground floor of the property No. E/2A, Mansarover Garden, New Delhi,
(without roof/terrace rights), it will be more appropriate, if the accurate and
proper site plan depicting the correct location of the shop in question be filed
alongwith PF within three working days from today.
Subject to this, warrants of possession be issued with respect to
the suit property i.e. above stated shop in question on filing of PF.
DH is directed to accompany the Bailiff to the spot.
DH is directed to appear before Ld. ACJ on 31.07.2014 at 2.00 PM.
Put up before this Court for report on 11.08.2014.

(SUJATA KOHLI)
CS No. 274/14
21.07.2014
Present: Sh. Harish Narang, Counsel for plaintiff.
Matter received by way of transfer as per the Order of Ld. District &
Sessions Judge, (West). It be checked and registered.
Let this case be taken up alongwith other four connected cases
i.e. CS Nos. 258/2014, 11/2014, 12/2014 and 13/2014, already stated to be
pending before this Court itself.
As such, to come up on date and purpose already fixed i.e. on
28.08.2014.
Earlier date i.e. 22.07.2014 fixed by the Ld. Transferor stands
canceled.

(SUJATA KOHLI)
CS No. 11/14, 12/14
13/14 & 258/14
21.07.2014
Present: Sh. Harish Narang, Counsel for plaintiff.
Matter received from the Court of Ld. District & Sessions Judge,
(West), alongwith Order of that Court.
Let this case be taken up alongwith other connected case i.e. CS
Nos. 274/2014, which is directed to be listed alongwith this case on the date &
purpose already fixed i.e. on 28.08.2014.
Ahlmad is directed to tag the Parcha Yadasat alongwith the main
file of this case.

(SUJATA KOHLI)
CS No. 105/14/05
21.07.2014
Present: Defendant no. 4/applicant in person.
File taken up on an application filed for summoning of the
witnesses/record.
Ld. Counsel for applicant is not available to explain the relevance and
necessity for calling of all these witnesses and the record. However, same cannot
be considered in the absence of the Ld. Counsel for the applicant.
However, only in the interest of justice, list again this application
for consideration only in the presence of the Ld. Counsel for the applicant
now on 22.07.2014 at 2.00 PM.
It is also made clear if position is the same on the NDOH also with
respect to this application, same shall be dismissed for non-prosecution
straight-away without any further Orders.

(SUJATA KOHLI)
M. No. 45/14/12
21.07.2014
Present: Counsel for applicant.
This application filed U/S 10, 11 & 12 of the Contempt of Courts
Act, and same has been taken up only for further proceedings after the
transfer of the said proceedings to this Court.
Today, Ld. Counsel for applicant mentions that main suit, out of
which this contempt petition filed, has been assigned to another Court i.e.
Court of Sh. Jagdish Kumar, Ld. Additional District Judge, (West), Delhi.
As such, it will be more appropriate for the one and the same
Court, who is seized of the main suit, to dispose of the contempt application
as well. Ld. Counsel for applicant requests to place the file before the Ld.
District & Sessions Judge, (West).
As such, Ahlmad is directed to send the file before the Court
of Ld. District & Sessions Judge, (West), THC, Delhi on 22.07.2014.
Parties and Ld. Counsels are directed to appear before the
Ld. District & Sessions Judge on the NDOH.
However, till the Orders of Ld. District & Sessions Judge,
(West), this matter shall be listed only for further proceedings to await
the Order therefrom.
List on 27.08.2014.

(SUJATA KOHLI)
RCA No. 34/12
21.07.2014
Present: Counsel for appellant alongwith appellant.
Counsel for respondent.
Arguments have been heard at length at length on behalf of the
appellant i.e. starting from 2.15 PM till 3.30 PM.
Put up for arguments on behalf of the respondent on 02.08.2014.
(Not to be taken up before 12.00 Noon).

(SUJATA KOHLI)
RCA No. 121/14/11
21.07.2014
Present: Sh. Rishi Prakash, New Counsel is appearing again for the
appellant alongwith appellant.
Sh. V.K. Srivastva, Counsel for the respondent.
Matter is listed today for final hearing, however, only adjournment is
being sought on behalf of the appellant stating that there is a new Vakalatnama on
behalf of the appellant on record, and new counsel is seeking one more opportunity.
However, there is no ground of adjournment, particularly in view of all
the observations already made in the last Order dated 15.07.2014 when while
adjourning the matter a cost had been imposed. Though, the said Order of cost
stands complied with as per the receipts produced by each party, but it seems that
the said cost had not the desired effect of getting this matter disposed off.
It is once again observed that today that appeal is pending for the last
three years, and it is very unfortunate that except the adjournments, there is not
headway. As such, the Court is not convinced to adjourn this matter any further.
At this stage, appellant in person makes a verbal submission that his
loan account in question, had already been settled with the respondent way back in
2006. He produced some photocopy papers carrying some rough calculation.
Firstly, the photocopy documents cannot have any kind of value in the
eyes of law, and even if this was so assuming for the sake of the arguments,why the
appellant continued to remain in appeal.
Appellant states that his grievance was with regard to the documents
of property, which remained in possession of the respondent.
However, in that case also, there was no reason for the appellant to sit-
over on this aspect for 8 long years and to continue in litigation, instead insuring at
the time of settlement of the alleged loan account that the documents of title would
have been returned by the respondent, and in case of any further grievance on that
count, instead of proceeding to continue in appeal, which also was never argued in
all these three years.
Even today, the Court is not convinced about the photocopy
documents produced by the new counsel for appellant, and whatever, the fact
remains that the matter repeatedly listed for final hearing, has to be adjourned on
account of non-preparation of the new counsel, each time on one pretext or another.
However, only in the interest of justice, one last opportunity is
being afforded for the purpose subject to cost of Rs. 5000/- to be deposited
with DLSA only by the appellant as Ld. Counsel for respondent is ready to do
the arguments.
In the meantime, Ld. Counsel for respondent also directed to
verify the status about any alleged settlement, and to inform the Court
accordingly after obtaining proper instructions. In case, if there has been
any settlement between the parties regarding the loan account in question
after passing of the impugned judgment & decree, which is the subject matter
in the appeal over here, Ld. Counsel for respondent is also directed to obtain
instructions regarding the status of the mortgage deed and other relevant
documents, and as to why, they had not been returned to the appellant till
date.
In the meantime, since previous counsel has not been discharged
from this case, new counsel for the appellant is directed to obtain the 'NOC'
from the previous counsel by the NDOH, as per the rules framed by the
Hon'ble High Court applicable to the Subordinate Courts.
List again for final hearing now on 28.07.2014 in the Post Lunch
Session.

(SUJATA KOHLI)
CS No. 207/14/09
AT 4.30 PM
21.07.2014
Present: None.
Vide separate detailed Order passed today, opportunity for cross-
examination of DW-1 stands closed as against defendant no. 1, as he has
failed to offer himself for cross-examination.
Put up for evidence of remaining defendants on 06.09.2014 as last
opportunity.
All affidavits if not filed already, be filed within four weeks from
today.

(SUJATA KOHLI)
CS No.136/11
21.07.2014
Present: Plaintiff in person.
Today, plaintiff has produced his original I-Card, seen and returned.
Copy taken on record. He is also filing the certified copy of the plaint.
Now in lieu of this, as already ordered, let plaint be returned to him
in terms of the order dated 12.02.2014 and thereafter file be consigned to
record room.

(SUJATA KOHLI)
DV West: Delhi:21.07.2014
M No.54/14
21.07.2014
Present: None.
Respondent still remains unserved as no steps have been taken.
However, in the interest of justice, one more opportunity is extended for
service of the respondent on filing of PF/Speed Post AD/Approved Courier.
Steps be taken within seven working days from today, returnable for
08.09.2014.

(SUJATA KOHLI)
M No.45/14/12
21.07.2014
Present: Petitioner in person.
This is a contempt application and it is seen that same is not being
pursued properly though it is pending for the last two years.
As requested, matter is being passed over and be recalled at the
end of the list.

(SUJATA KOHLI)
CS No.247/14/12
21.07.2014
Present: Ld. Counsel for plaintiff Ms. Manju Nanda alongwith
plaintiff.
Ld. Counsel for defendants no.4 to 7 Sh. B.R. Sharma.
Original death certificate of defendant no.1 has been filed by the
ld. Counsel for plaintiff today. However, no steps have been taken for service
of the proposed LR no.1 who is residing at USA. There is also an affidavit
stated to have been filed, as per which, there are no other LRs apart from the
two LRs stated.
Let proper steps be taken for service of both the LRs on
filing of PF/Speed Post AD/Approved Courier. However, in case of LR
no.1 Sh. Anil Arora, the steps in accordance with rules governing to
NRIs would have to be taken by the plaintiff and a period of three
months minimum would be required to await the return of summons.
Steps be taken within three working days from today.
At this stage, ld. Counsel for defendants no.4 to 6 presses upon
an application u/s 151 CPC stated to be pending. However, it is the issue of
disposal of the application for impleadment of the LRs of deceased defendant
which needs to be decided first. As such, the said application u/s 151 CPC
shall be kept in abeyance and to be taken up thereafter as and when
pressed.
List on 29.11.2014.

(SUJATA KOHLI)
CS No.121/14/12
21.07.2014
Present: Plaintiff in person.
Mr. Rajbir Singh claims to be appearing for defendant no.1 alone.
However, as per vakalatnama already on record, there is a combined vakalatnama
of Mr. J.V. Rana, advocate, showing him to be representing, besides defendants no.
2, 7 and 8, defendant no.1 as well and since this vakalatnama is prior in time to
vakalatnama of Mr. Rajbir Singh who is associate of Mr. Sandeep Jain & Associates
and is without obtaining NOC from the previous counsel, it is deemed that earlier
counsel Sh. J.V. Rana would continue to represent defendant no.1. However, since
he is not present today, let court notice be issued to him to appear before this
court and to clarify the situation.
In the meantime, WS is already there on behalf of the above said
defendants no.1, 2, 7 and 8.
Put up for replication, if any, to the said WS, to be filed within
four weeks from today, however, after serving advance copy to the opposite
counsel on acknowledgment.
As regards other defendants, their defence has already been closed.
Put up for completions of pleadings between plaintiff and the said
defendants, A/D of documents and issues on 17.09.2014. Parties from all the
sides must be present in person to carry out admission denial on NODH.

(SUJATA KOHLI)
CS No.346/14/13
21.07.2014
Present: Ld. Counsel for plaintiff Sh. Pardeep Kumar Jha.
Defendant no.1 is remaining unserved as per reports on all the three
addresses. It seems that defendant no.1 is avoiding ordinary service. Let him be
served by affixation at all the three addresses on filing of PF within three
working days from today through ld. District Judges concerned.
The Process Server shall comply with all the rules for affixation,
for which plaintiff would be allowed to accompany the Process Server for the
purpose of photographs. The photographs be filed by the Process Server
only alongwith his report on the NDOH.
A request letter be also sent to Ld. District Judges concerned, so
that the report of Process Server should be sent back in time.
List on 04.09.2014.

(SUJATA KOHLI)
RCA No. 104/14/13
21.07.2014
Present: None.
When this matter had come to this court by way of transfer on
25.04.2014, only proxy counsel had appeared. This appeal was put up before Ld.
Transferor Court on 01.07.2013 and thereafter, in spite of directions on as many as
three dates, no steps have been taken by the appellant. Neither the main counsel
for appellant nor the appellant had appeared before Ld. Transferor Court nor any
steps were taken.
It is quite clear that appellant does not want to pursue this appeal any
further. As such, same is being dismissed for non-prosecution.
Copy of this order be sent to Ld. Trial Court.
File be consigned to Record Room.

(SUJATA KOHLI)
MCA No.15/14/13
21.07.2014
Present: Ld. Counsel for appellant Sgh. Rajeev Sharma.
Respondent no.2 in person.
Respondents no.1, 1A and 3 are still remaining unserved for the simple
reason that no steps have been taken to cure the deficiency as pointed out by Ld.
Transferor Court way back on 15.01.2014. There is no ground for extending any
further opportunity.
However, in the interest of justice, one more opportunity is
extended for taking of all the necessary/complete steps, subject to costs of
Rs.2,000/- to be deposited with DLSA. Steps be taken within seven working
days from today. In case of out station, service would be effected through Ld.
District Judge concerned.
List on 23.09.2014.

(SUJATA KOHLI)
CS No. 41/14
21.07.2014
Present: Ld. Counsel for plaintiff Sh. Mukesh Ranjan.
Court fee has already been affixed advelorem.
Heard further on this ordinary suit.
This suit is stated to be well within time as per payments made from
time to time by the defendants by cheques and further even revival letters are stated
to be there.
Let summons be issued to the defendant on filing of PF/Speed
Post AD/Approved Court, returnable on 09.09.2014. Service would be effected
through Ld. District Judge concerned. Steps be taken within seven working
days from today.
List on 09.09.2014.

(SUJATA KOHLI)
CS No. 184/14
21.07.2014
Present: Ld. Counsel for plaintiff Sh. Mukesh Ranjan.
Court fee has already been affixed advelorem.
Heard further on this ordinary suit.
This suit is stated to be well within time as per payments made from
time to time by the defendants by cheques and further even revival letters are stated
to be there.
Let summons be issued to the defendant on filing of PF/Speed
Post AD/Approved Court, returnable on 09.09.2014. Service would be effected
through Ld. District Judge concerned. Steps be taken within seven working
days from today.
List on 09.09.2014.

(SUJATA KOHLI)
Ex No.21/14
21.07.2014
Present: None.
Put up for further proceedings on 06.09.2014.

(SUJATA KOHLI)
Ex No.34/14
21.07.2014
Present: Bailiff Sh. B.R. Patel is present from Nazrat Branch.
Separate statement of bailiff has been recorded today. However, since
none is present for DH to pursue the decree for the part relating to money decree,
matter is being adjourned for further proceedings on 10.09.2014.

(SUJATA KOHLI)
CS No. 80/14/13
21.07.2014
Present: Ld. Counsel for plaintiff Sh. Sandeep Banga.
Ld. Counsel for defendant Sh. Jasbir Singh
Today, replication is being filed alongwith affidavit. Copy given.
Though this matter was listed for A/D of facts and documents and for
framing of issues. It is also conceded by ld. Counsel for parties and also upon
going through pleadings of the parties that there is no question of interest involved
at all as it is admitted by defendant no.1 that service tax has already been paid by
him and the only grievance as remaining is about the interest claimed on the said
service tax. There is only a legal question raised by defendant no.1 vide their
preliminary objection that the suit for only interest is not maintainable in view of the
provisions of Interest Act.
As regards the question of legal liability as raised by the defendant
regarding payment of service tax and in other words as to who is supposed to bear
the burden of service tax i.e. whether service provider or whether the
consumer/recipient of the service, though the said service tax as a matter of fact
undisputed, has already been paid by defendant to plaintiff and there is no claim of
refund, even so, this question would be quite relevant to be considered for the
simple reason that in case the court in the light of the law/authorities on the subject
comes to a conclusion that it was actually not a legal liability of the defendant to
have paid the service tax, it would then automatically lead to legal consequence that
there would not be any question of paying any interest thereon whatsoever. As such,
though as an issue of fact, same need not be framed but as a question of law, same
must be framed. As such, this issue is framed accordingly.
Whether it was the legal liability of the defendant (recipient of service)
to have paid the service tax to the plaintiff (the service provider)?
This is also having regard that the courts cannot encourage any
unjust enrichment to any party at the costs of the party.
List for arguments on both issues on 02.09.2014.
(SUJATA KOHLI)
Second Call at 12:30 PM
CS No.207/14/09
21.07.2014
Present: Ld. Counsel for plaintiff Sh. R.K. Jain.
Ld. Counsel for defendant no.1 Sh. Kanwal Chaudhary.
Ld. Counsel for defendants no.3 and 4 Sh. Sachin Kumar
Singhal.
Defendant no.1 Harmesh Kumar in person.
DW1 is present. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff was ready to cross-
examine the witness. In the first call today, even pass over was sought by the
witness for his counsel.
It is now submitted by ld. Counsel for defendant no.1 that let this
matter be adjourned for settlement.
This court has tried to go into the question as to whether firstly
since if there was any settlement possibility between the parties, steps should
have taken earlier, as this is already five years old case and pending at the
stage of cross-examination of DW1. It is bounden duty of the court that
matters are not lightly adjourned on the pretext of settlement particularly in a
five years old case.
Ld. Counsel for defendants no.1 states that if the plaintiff and the
defendant no.1 are ready for settlement, why should the court any objection
and why should the Court discourage a settlement. It is not a question of
discouraging a settlement in any manner which ld. Counsel for defendant no.1
is trying to make out on the face of the court and same is not appreciated at
all. This court was inclined to go into the record to ascertain that the earlier
dates should not have been taken on the pretext of settlement, particularly in
view of the fact that this case is already five years old.
Further, there is also another matter pending between the family
members regarding partition before Hon'ble High Court and the submission of
the ld. counsel for defendant no.1 and plaintiff to say that they both of them
alone would settle the entire matter cannot be acceptable, as no settlement
can take place or even be initiated without the personal appearance of all the
parties as same would affect their rights.
Further if the parties were really inclined to settle this matter, they
should have settled the matter earlier in between so many dates. Reference is
again had to the order sheet dated 16.05.2014, wherein earlier proceedings in
this case have been taken note of and observations were made about the DE
in the light of this. This exercise of settlement would more appropriately have
been done in between the two dates when matter was lying adjourned.
Further, if the ld. counsel for defendant no.1 has any grievance
with this court, there is a forum and there is procedure to be adopted in stead
of throwing comments on the the face of the court and questioning the
conduct of the court. This kind of conduct shall not be appreciated in future
from the counsel.
Matter shall come up for orders today itself at 4:00 PM regarding
today's adjournment request as the court needs time to go through the record
of this case.
(SUJATA KOHLI)
Ex No.52/14/09
21.07.2014
Present: Ld. counsel for DH alongwith DH.
Ld. counsel for DH seeks time to move an appropriate application.
Time is granted. However, same must be accompanied by the affidavit of the
DH. DH shall continue to appear in person until further orders.
List on 28.08.2014.
(SUJATA KOHLI)
DV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE
WEST/DELHI/21.07.2014
CS No.28/14/12
21.07.2014
Present: Ld. counsel for plaintiff Ms. Seema Tiwari alongwith PW| Ms.
Gurvinder Kaur Bakshi.
Ld. counsel for defendant Sh. Satish Sahai.
Matter is listed for PE. However, two applications are being
moved at this stage by both parties. One application is being filed on behalf of
the defendant/applicant u/O 8 Rule 1A CPC in the counter claim i.e. bringing
on record additional documents. Copy given. Also another application on
behalf of the plaintiff is being filed to seek substitution of the AR. Copy given.
Put up for replies if any and arguments on the said two
applications on NDOH. Advance copy of the replies be given to the
opposite counsel on acknowledgment at least two weeks from the date
fixed.
In the meantime, the affidavits of the witnesses are being filed i.e.
of the AR and also another witness Sh. Laxman Prasad Aggarwal. The point of
delay would be considered at the time of disposal of both the applications. For
the time being, matter is being simply adjourned without any sufficient cause.
On NDOH, the plaintiff/applicant must be ready with all the
documents for the reasons about the substitution of new AR with the
previous AR. Original power of attorney/board resolution extract duly
certified by the Company Secretary in favour of new proposed AR must
also be produced on NDOH.
List for arguments on the both the applications i.e. of the
plaintiff and the defendant on 04.09.2014.
(SUJATA KOHLI)
CS No.193/14/12
21.07.2014
Present: Ld. counsel for plaintiff Sh. Gulshan Kumar alongwith plaintiff.
Ld. counsel for defendant Sh. S.K. Anand.
Matter is listed for arguments on the application filed by the
plaintiff seeking handwriting expert from the CFSL or from a private
handwriting expert for the expert opinion.
Ld. counsel for defendant has submitted that first plaintiff should
examine himself and lead his entire remaining evidence and only thereafter, the
application may be allowed. He has further submitted that as per the provisions
of CPC as well that it is always the party who shall examine himself first.
Even otherwise, for the purpose of examination, the original
documents would have to be sent to CFSL and that would unnecessarily stall
the proceedings in the main case.
I am in agreement with the submission of ld. counsel for defendant
and accordingly though it is recorded that on merits of the application, ld.
counsel for defendant has no objection. But the said application would be kept
in abeyance for further formal directions and disposal after plaintiff has led his
all other remaining evidence including his own examination/cross-examination.
List of witnesses be filed within four days and all the affidavits
within 8 weeks after supplying advance copies to the opposite counsel on
acknowledgment.
List on 22.09.2014 for PE.(the date and day as requested by
both parties).
(SUJATA KOHLI)
CS No.219/14/13
21.07.2014
Present: Ld. counsel for plaintiff Sh. B.L. Chawla alongwith plaintiff.
Ld. counsel for defendant Sh. R.K. Sachdeva.
Arguments heard.
Put up for orders on 28.07.2014.
(SUJATA KOHLI)
Ex No.49/14/13
21.07.2014
Present: Ld. counsel for DH alongwith DH.
JD in person.
Main counsel for DH is not present stated to be busy before
Hon'ble High Court. Today's date had been given as per convenience and
diaries of ld. counsel for parties on both sides. Being busy in another court is
not a ground for adjournment or passing over the matter any further. It is
stated that he shall not be available today.
Arguments have been heard on behalf of DH and also on behalf of
JD who is present in person at length.
DH has alleged that part of the payment which was to be made by
the JD as per his statement recorded, he failed to pay up. DH claims to have
made up his part of payment. He states that he had paid Rs.1,29,000/- in cash
to the JD, but he did not obtain any receipt. No valid explanation is
forthcoming for the receipt. DH states that he did not deem it necessary to
obtain receipt from the JD and also prior to litigation, he had been giving
payments without receipt as stated. This submission on the face of the record is
quite surprising when the parties were totally involved in litigation.
JD has produced the copy of letter which he claims to have sent to
the DH. However, same is not supported by any proof of receipt. AD card as
relied upon by the JD is blank without any endorsement of Post Office
whatsoever. However, he has produced a postal receipt dated 20.01.2010
showing addressed to the DH. However, it is again noted that the postal receipt
is not containing the complete address i.e. no house, no street number. As
such, no presumption under General Clauses Act can be made.
However, at this stage, JD has now produced a certificate issued by
the Senior Post Manager, Paschim Vihar Post Office, New Delhi and which is
showing the due dispatch on 20.01.2010 and delivery of the articles to DH on
21.01.2010. Same are being taken on record.
Put up for orders on 30.07.2014.
(SUJATA KOHLI)
CS No.236/14
21.07.2014
Present: Proxy counsel Sh. Sidhant Kaushik for the main counsel Sh. Om
Parkash.
Proxy counsel Ms. Priyanka for the main counsel for defendant.
This matter was being lastly adjourned for as many as two effective
dates only to await settlement as submitted by the proxy counsel under instructions
way back on 06.05.2014, when it was actually at the stage of reply/arguments to the
application for leave to defend.
Since the main counsel and the AR are not even present today, no
reference could be made nor the matter could have taken up for settlement today
itself. Till date the position remain same as the defendant company is being
represented only by proxy counsel. Reply to the leave to defend application is now
being filed. Copy given.
In the meantime, it has been stated by the proxy counsel for defendant
today that Ms. Ankita Bajpai who had appeared on the last date, is only a proxy
counsel and not the main counsel. The error be rectified.
Put up for arguments on the said application on 01.09.2014. It is
made clear that no adjournments would be extended on NDOH and both
counsels must be ready with the arguments. (SUJATA KOHLI)
MCA No.02/14
21.07.2014
Present: Ld. counsel for appellant.
Today, same submissions are being made. It is informed by ld. counsel
for appellant that date has been given by the Ld. Trial Court for recording of
statements of the parties. As per the last order sheet of Ld. Trial Court, matter had
been adjourned for A/D of documents and issues and thereafter, there is no other
order sheet.
Trial Court Record had already been directed to be returned to the Ld.
Trial Court and to be made available as and when required in the appeal. However,
for some reasons, file was not sent back by the concerned staff.
Ld. counsel for appellant has submitted that there is a scope of
settlement between the parties and parties shall record their statement before Ld.
Trial Court.
As such, ld. counsels and parties are directed to appear before Ld.
Trial Court for recording their statements on 28.07.2014 as informed. However,
this appeal shall be listed only for further proceedings before this court on
31.07.2014.
Ahlmad is directed to send the file immediately.
(SUJATA KOHLI)
CS No.328/14
21.07.2014
Present: Applicant/plaintiff in person.
File has been taken up on an application for amendment of the
plaint u/o 6 Rule 17 CPC. This matter is originally listed on 20.08.2014 for
further arguments on maintainability. No advance copy of the application has
served upon the opposite counsel.
However, after going through the contents of this application,
let notice of the application be issued to the opposite counsel on filing of PF
today itself, returnable for 05.08.2014.
(SUJATA KOHLI)
CS No.93A/12
21.07.2014
Present: None for petitioner/objector.
Proxy counsel Mr. Mukesh Batnagar for the main counsel for
respondent Sh. Arun Sharma.
Matter is listed for final hearing. Proxy counsel for respondent
requests for adjournment citing the ground of illness of main counsel who is
stated to be suffering from viral fever.
As requested, in th interest of justice, list again for final
hearing on objection petition on 30.07.2014 post lunch.
(SUJATA KOHLI)
RCA No.18/14/11
21.07.2014
Present: None.
No time left.
Put up for further consideration and orders on 31.07.2014.
(SUJATA KOHLI)
CS No.146/12
21.07.2014
Present: None.
No time left.
Put up for further consideration and orders on 02.08.2014.
(SUJATA KOHLI)
RCA No.20/14
21.07.2014
Present: None.
Matter taken up for further directions. Though there is an
application filed for appointment of Local Commissioner u/o 26 Rule 9 CPC by
the appellant, it is necessary that respondent no.1 who is still remaining
unserved, be served alongwith copy of the application and of the appeal on
filing of PF/Speed Post AD and Approved Courier within seven working
days from today, returnable for 10.09.2014 and only thereafter, the said
application shall be taken up for consideration. The service would be
effected through the Ld. District Judge concerned.
(SUJATA KOHLI)
DE No.01/14
21.07.2014
Present: None.
Matter requires clarification in view of the discrepancy in the
name of the delinquent official itself, put up for clarification from the
concerned department on 22.07.2014.
(SUJATA KOHLI)
No.
21.07.2014
Present:
(SUJATA KOHLI)
No.
21.07.2014
Present:
(SUJATA KOHLI)
No.
21.07.2014
Present:
(SUJATA KOHLI)
No.
21.07.2014
Present:
(SUJATA KOHLI)
No.
21.07.2014
Present:
(SUJATA KOHLI)
No.
21.07.2014
Present:
(SUJATA KOHLI)
No.
21.07.2014
Present:
(SUJATA KOHLI)
No.
21.07.2014
Present:
(SUJATA KOHLI)
No.
21.07.2014
Present:
(SUJATA KOHLI)
No.
21.07.2014
Present:
(SUJATA KOHLI)
No.
21.07.2014
Present:
(SUJATA KOHLI)
No.
21.07.2014
Present:
(SUJATA KOHLI)
No.
21.07.2014
Present:
(SUJATA KOHLI)
No.
21.07.2014
Present:
(SUJATA KOHLI)
No.
21.07.2014
Present:
(SUJATA KOHLI)
No.
21.07.2014
Present:
(SUJATA KOHLI)
No.
21.07.2014
Present:
(SUJATA KOHLI)
No.
21.07.2014
Present:
(SUJATA KOHLI)
No.
21.07.2014
Present:
(SUJATA KOHLI)
No.
21.07.2014
Present:
(SUJATA KOHLI)
No.
21.07.2014
Present:
(SUJATA KOHLI)
No.
21.07.2014
Present:
(SUJATA KOHLI)
No.
21.07.2014
Present:
(SUJATA KOHLI)
No.
21.07.2014
Present:
(SUJATA KOHLI)
No.
21.07.2014
Present:
(SUJATA KOHLI)
No.
21.07.2014
Present:
(SUJATA KOHLI)
No.
21.07.2014
Present:
(SUJATA KOHLI)
No.
21.07.2014
Present:
(SUJATA KOHLI)
No.
21.07.2014
Present:
(SUJATA KOHLI)
No.
21.07.2014
Present:
(SUJATA KOHLI)
No.
21.07.2014
Present:
(SUJATA KOHLI)
No.
21.07.2014
Present:
(SUJATA KOHLI)
No.
21.07.2014
Present:
(SUJATA KOHLI)
No.
21.07.2014
Present:
(SUJATA KOHLI)
No.
21.07.2014
Present:
(SUJATA KOHLI)
No.
21.07.2014
Present:
(SUJATA KOHLI)
No.
21.07.2014
Present:
(SUJATA KOHLI)
No.
21.07.2014
Present:
(SUJATA KOHLI)
No.
21.07.2014
Present:
(SUJATA KOHLI)
No.
21.07.2014
Present:
(SUJATA KOHLI)
No.
21.07.2014
Present:
(SUJATA KOHLI)
No.
21.07.2014
Present:
(SUJATA KOHLI)
No.
21.07.2014
Present:
(SUJATA KOHLI)
No.
21.07.2014
Present:
(SUJATA KOHLI)
No.
21.07.2014
Present:
(SUJATA KOHLI)
No.__________
30.11.2013
Present: None.
No time left.
Put up for further consideration and orders on ___________.
(SUJATA KOHLI)
ADJ/WEST/DELHI/30.11.2013

21 7 14

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

21 7 14

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CS No.

You might also like