Full Text
Translation output
W.P.(C) 2979/2017
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of order: May 02, 2017
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of order: May 02, 2017
W.P.(C) 2979/2017
ANJANA DEVI MITTAL ..... Petitioner
Through : Ms. Meena Chaudhary Sharma, Advocate.
ANJANA DEVI MITTAL ..... Petitioner
Through : Ms. Meena Chaudhary Sharma, Advocate.
VERSUS
OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD. ..... Respondent
Through : Mr. Avinash Singh, Advocate.
Through : Mr. Avinash Singh, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
(ORAL)
Order of 5th June, 2014 permits only Question no. 3 to be asked in cross examination while disallowing Question nos. 1 and 2 in ‘Annexure-
C’ to this petition.
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the first two questions in ‘Annexure - C’ are relevant and so the petitioner ought to be permitted to cross-examine respondents’ material witness-Mr. Vikram Malhotra, Deputy General Manager (HR) Incharge (MW-3).
The opposition to this petition by respondent’s counsel is on the ground that petitioner has already cross-examined this witness (MW-3) at length and has asked about the appointing authority of petitioner and this
2017:DHC:2335
(ORAL)
Order of 5th June, 2014 permits only Question no. 3 to be asked in cross examination while disallowing Question nos. 1 and 2 in ‘Annexure-
C’ to this petition.
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the first two questions in ‘Annexure - C’ are relevant and so the petitioner ought to be permitted to cross-examine respondents’ material witness-Mr. Vikram Malhotra, Deputy General Manager (HR) Incharge (MW-3).
The opposition to this petition by respondent’s counsel is on the ground that petitioner has already cross-examined this witness (MW-3) at length and has asked about the appointing authority of petitioner and this
2017:DHC:2335
W.P.(C) 2979/2017 witness (MW-3) has already answered in cross examination that he is not aware as to whether respondent/ONGC has any permanent employee or not and so, this petition deserves dismissal.
Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned order and the record, I find that first two questions as in ‘Annexure-C’ are essential for the just decision of this case and hence the impugned order dated 5th June, 2014 is set aside with direction to permit petitioner to ask Question Nos. 1 and 2 as in ‘Annexure-C’ to respondent's witness MW-3.
Let the records be remitted back through a Special Messenger. The parties shall appear before the Tribunal on the date fixed i.e. tomorrow for fixing a date for limited cross examination of MW-3. It is made clear that the reopening of evidence of MW-3 shall be confined only to
Question Nos. 1 and 2 as in ‘Annexure-C’.
With the aforesaid directions, this petition is disposed of.
A copy of this order be given dasti to parties.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
MAY 02, 2017 j 2017:DHC:2335
Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned order and the record, I find that first two questions as in ‘Annexure-C’ are essential for the just decision of this case and hence the impugned order dated 5th June, 2014 is set aside with direction to permit petitioner to ask Question Nos. 1 and 2 as in ‘Annexure-C’ to respondent's witness MW-3.
Let the records be remitted back through a Special Messenger. The parties shall appear before the Tribunal on the date fixed i.e. tomorrow for fixing a date for limited cross examination of MW-3. It is made clear that the reopening of evidence of MW-3 shall be confined only to
Question Nos. 1 and 2 as in ‘Annexure-C’.
With the aforesaid directions, this petition is disposed of.
A copy of this order be given dasti to parties.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
MAY 02, 2017 j 2017:DHC:2335
JUDGMENT