Full Text
Translation output
Q
23,24
% 17.11.2009
Present: Mr Raghav Gupta and Ms Divya Radhakrishnan, Advocates for the Appellant.
Mr Ashim Vachher and Mr Achal Gupta, Advocates for R-2 and R-3.
Ms Malini Sud and Mr Deepak Khurana,Advs.for R-
4.
Mr Arvind K.Nigam, Sr Adv. with Mr
R.N.Karanjawala, Mr Akshay Makhija, Ms Jasmine
Damkewala, Mr Saurabh Seth and Ms Lakshmi
Ramachandran, Advocates for Anand P.Jaiswal/R-5.
+ CM 16449/2009(early hearing)in FAO(OS)360/2009
AND CM 16448/2009(early hearing)in FAO(OS)361/2009
For the reasons stated in the Applications, both the
Applications are allowed.
FAO(OS)360/2009 & FAO(OS)361/2009
Learned Counsel for the affected Respondents namely Respondent No.2 to 5 states that the impugned Orders may be set aside/modified to the extent that the
Appellant/Petitioner may be permitted to lead evidence in rebuttal in accordance with law. The impugned Order is modified accordingly. Learned counsel for the Appellant states that an Application for examination of three witnesses on commission has been disposed of. But according to her, no specific directions have been given.
2009:DHC:12754-DB f # w ~~
It is clarified that these three witnesses are to be examined by way of rebuttal. In view of the concession, the
Appellant would be free to examine these witnesses on commission at the stage which the Appellantfinds convenient.
Since this concession has been made by the
Respondent with a view to expedite the matter, counsel for the
Appellant/Petitioner states that no adjournment shall be taken on the ground ofthe pendency ofthe present Appeal.
Both the Appeals are disposed ofin these terms.
VIKRAMAJIT SEN,J.
SUNIL GAUR,J.
November 17,2009 nt
2009:DHC:12754-DB
23,24
% 17.11.2009
Present: Mr Raghav Gupta and Ms Divya Radhakrishnan, Advocates for the Appellant.
Mr Ashim Vachher and Mr Achal Gupta, Advocates for R-2 and R-3.
Ms Malini Sud and Mr Deepak Khurana,Advs.for R-
4.
Mr Arvind K.Nigam, Sr Adv. with Mr
R.N.Karanjawala, Mr Akshay Makhija, Ms Jasmine
Damkewala, Mr Saurabh Seth and Ms Lakshmi
Ramachandran, Advocates for Anand P.Jaiswal/R-5.
+ CM 16449/2009(early hearing)in FAO(OS)360/2009
AND CM 16448/2009(early hearing)in FAO(OS)361/2009
For the reasons stated in the Applications, both the
Applications are allowed.
FAO(OS)360/2009 & FAO(OS)361/2009
Learned Counsel for the affected Respondents namely Respondent No.2 to 5 states that the impugned Orders may be set aside/modified to the extent that the
Appellant/Petitioner may be permitted to lead evidence in rebuttal in accordance with law. The impugned Order is modified accordingly. Learned counsel for the Appellant states that an Application for examination of three witnesses on commission has been disposed of. But according to her, no specific directions have been given.
2009:DHC:12754-DB f # w ~~
It is clarified that these three witnesses are to be examined by way of rebuttal. In view of the concession, the
Appellant would be free to examine these witnesses on commission at the stage which the Appellantfinds convenient.
Since this concession has been made by the
Respondent with a view to expedite the matter, counsel for the
Appellant/Petitioner states that no adjournment shall be taken on the ground ofthe pendency ofthe present Appeal.
Both the Appeals are disposed ofin these terms.
VIKRAMAJIT SEN,J.
SUNIL GAUR,J.
November 17,2009 nt
2009:DHC:12754-DB
JUDGMENT