Sandesh Bansal vs Union Of India on 9 August, 2011

0
34
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sandesh Bansal vs Union Of India on 9 August, 2011
                                                                 1.....
                W.P.No.9061 of 2008




09.08.2011


      Ms. Jayshree Satpute, Counsel for the petitioner.
      Shri Santosh Vishwakarma, Counsel appearing on behalf of
Mohan Sausarkar, Counsel for respondent No.1.

Shri Rahul Jain, Dy. A.G. for the respondents No.2 to 5.
Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1
submitted that his Senior Shri Mohan Sausarkar has gone to
Delhi and prays for short adjournment.

Shri Rahul Jain, learned Dy.A.G. also submits that in this
case State is required to file a detailed reply and for this he prays
for two weeks time.

Prayer is opposed by the counsel for the petitioner who
submitted that more than 16 adjournments have been granted in
this case but inspite of this respondents have not filed reply,
rather a proper reply in this matter. It is also submitted by her
that this case was fixed today with the consent of the parties and
in case of adjournment, a heavy cost be imposed on the
respondents because only to argue this matter, she has come
from Delhi.

Though the aforesaid contention is opposed by the
respondents but we found substance in the objection of the
petitioner.

As the counsel for respondent No.1 is not appearing and
State has not filed proper reply, we adjourn hearing of this
matter for a period of 2 weeks as prayed by Shri Rahul Jain,
however, on payment of cost which we quantify Rs.10,000/-
payable by both the set of the respondents in equal share. The
aforesaid cost will be paid by the respondents before the next
date of hearing to the petitioner.

2…..

W.P.No.9061 of 2008

09.08.2011

List for hearing on 12th September,2011. On or before that
date, State and respondent No.1 shall filed their detailed reply.
After getting the reply from the respondents, we shall fix the
matter for hearing on the aforesaid date.

At this stage, learned Dy.A.G. submitted that he is not
possessing copy of the petition. Shri Anubhave Jain, counsel
appearing for the petitioner undertakes to serve a complete set
of this petition to the Dy.A.G. during the course of the day.

C.C.as per rules.



     (Krishn Kumar Lahoti)                    (Smt. Vimla Jain)
            JUDGE                                  JUDGE
vj
 

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here