Full Text
Translation output
$-10 & 11 (common order)
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
. CRL.L.P. 335/2015 and Crl.M.A.6307-6308/2015
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
. CRL.L.P. 335/2015 and Crl.M.A.6307-6308/2015
CRL.L.P. 336/2015 and Crl.M.A.6329-6330/2015
M/S VEE PEE INTERNATIONAL PVTLTD Petitioner
Through: Mr. Jagdish Sharma, AR ofthe petitioner.
M/S VEE PEE INTERNATIONAL PVTLTD Petitioner
Through: Mr. Jagdish Sharma, AR ofthe petitioner.
VERSUS
ANURUDDH KUMAR JAIN Respondent
Through;
Through;
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
ORDER o/o 21.04.2017 When the petitions were called out in the pre-lunch session no one had appeared. At 4:00 p.m., Mr. Jagdish Sharma authorized representative ofthe petitioner company has appeared only to seek adjournment..
It is noted that these criminal leave petitions were filed inApril, 2015.
By order dated 14.05.2015, notices were directed to be issued to the respondent by all permissible modes. No steps were taken by the petitioner.
On 21.08.2015, fresh opportunity was granted and the petitioner was directed to take necessary steps within one week on which notices were to issue by all permissible modes for 13.01.2016.
On 13.01.2016 adjournment was taken. On 02.05.2016 it was again noted that respondent had not been served. Petitioner was called upon to take the steps for notices to issue in each matter for 06.10.2016. Again, there was a default. On 06.10.2016, another opportunity was given and it was directed that in case steps were not taken, these matters would be liable to be dismissed for non prosecution.
ORDER o/o 21.04.2017 When the petitions were called out in the pre-lunch session no one had appeared. At 4:00 p.m., Mr. Jagdish Sharma authorized representative ofthe petitioner company has appeared only to seek adjournment..
It is noted that these criminal leave petitions were filed inApril, 2015.
By order dated 14.05.2015, notices were directed to be issued to the respondent by all permissible modes. No steps were taken by the petitioner.
On 21.08.2015, fresh opportunity was granted and the petitioner was directed to take necessary steps within one week on which notices were to issue by all permissible modes for 13.01.2016.
On 13.01.2016 adjournment was taken. On 02.05.2016 it was again noted that respondent had not been served. Petitioner was called upon to take the steps for notices to issue in each matter for 06.10.2016. Again, there was a default. On 06.10.2016, another opportunity was given and it was directed that in case steps were not taken, these matters would be liable to be dismissed for non prosecution.
CRL.LP. 335/2015 Etc. Page 1of2 . s
2017:DHC:9126 Same situation prevailed on 19.01.2017. The court granted yet another indulgence, though subject to costs ofRs.10,000/-. The office report again states that neither costs have been deposited nor any steps have been taken.
There being no explanation given for the continued default, these petitions with accompanying applications are dismissed for non prosecution.
APRIL 21, 2017 vk
2017:DHC:9126 Same situation prevailed on 19.01.2017. The court granted yet another indulgence, though subject to costs ofRs.10,000/-. The office report again states that neither costs have been deposited nor any steps have been taken.
There being no explanation given for the continued default, these petitions with accompanying applications are dismissed for non prosecution.
APRIL 21, 2017 vk
CRL.L.P. 335/2015 Etc.
GAUBA, J.
Page 2 of2 n 2017:DHC:9126
GAUBA, J.
Page 2 of2 n 2017:DHC:9126
JUDGMENT