Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Supreme Court - Daily Orders

Hubli-Dharwad Urban Development ... vs Ningamma Patil on 26 October, 2021

Bench: K.M. Joseph, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha

                                                             1

     ITEM NO.104                                  COURT NO.10                        SECTION IV-A

                                    S U P R E M E C O U R T O F              I N D I A
                                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

     Civil Appeal                  No(s).     3236/2011

     HUBLI-DHARWAD URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY                                      Appellant(s)

                                                          VERSUS

     NINGAMMA PATIL & ORS.                                                          Respondent(s)



     (I.A. NO.132334/2021:-APPLICATION                            FOR   DISCHARGE   OF   ADVOCATE   ON
     RECORD)

     Date : 26-10-2021 This appeal was called on for hearing today.


     CORAM :
                              HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.M. JOSEPH
                              HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA

     For Appellant(s)                       Mr. Ankolekar Gurudatta, AOR

     For Respondent(s)                      Mr. D. P. Chaturvedi, Adv.

                                            Mr. S. N. Bhat, AOR (Not present)


                               UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
                                                  O R D E R

It is stated by Mr. D. P. Chaturvedi, learned counsel representing the respondents that Mr. S. N. Bhat, learned Advocate on Record had earlier filed vakalatnama on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 5. On instructions, it is stated that respondent No.1 has expired. As far as respondent Nos. 2 to 5 are concerned, it is his statement that instructions are not received from the client and Signature Not Verified for this reason he is not inclined to continue as an Advocate. Digitally signed by DEEPAK SINGH Date: 2021.10.27 17:20:51 IST Reason: Therefore, Mr. S. N. Bhat, learned Advocate on Record has filed an application for discharging him as the Advocate on record on behalf 2 of respondent Nos. 2 to 5. The application (I.A. No.132334 of 2021) is allowed.

In view of discharge of Mr. S. N. Bhat, learned Advocate on Record and death of respondent No.1, learned counsel for the appellant will take necessary steps for bringing on record the Legal representatives of respondent No.1 by filing an application for substitution and upon such application being filed notice shall be issued by the Registry. So far as the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 are concerned, the Registry will issue fresh notices for making an alternative arrangements.

In addition, learned counsel for the appellant is permitted to take dasti service for serving respondent Nos. 2 to 5. In view of the above, list the case after two months.

(JAGDISH KUMAR)                                                (RENU KAPOOR)
COURT MASTER (SH)                                               BRANCH OFFICER