Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Angeline Randolph Pereira vs Suyog Industrial Estate Premises Co ... on 7 December, 2020
ITEM NO.7 REGISTRAR COURT. 1 THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE
SECTION IX
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
BEFORE THE REGISTRAR SH. ANIL LAXMAN PANSARE
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 12570/2018
ANGELINE RANDOLPH PEREIRA & ORS. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
SUYOG INDUSTRIAL ESTATE PREMISES CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. & ORS.
Respondent(s)
Date : 07-12-2020 This petition was called on for hearing today.
For Petitioner(s)
Ms. Shally Bhasin, Adv.
Ms. Neha Agarwal, Adv.
Ms. Vaishali Kalera, Adv.
Ms. Saloni, Adv.
Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR
For Respondent(s)
Mr. Gaurav Goel, AOR
Mr. Raghvendra Pratap Singh, Adv.
Mr. Jasvir Singh Sabharwal, Adv.
M/S. Karanjawala & Co., AOR
Mr. Arun R. Pedneker, Adv.
Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR
Mr. Sachin Patil, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel through Video Conference, the
Court made the following
O R D E R
Respondent No.1 has filed counter affidavit. Opportunity to respondent Nos.3, 7, 8 and 13 to file counter affidavit has already been declined. Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Anil Laxman Pansare Date: 2020.12.08
Application filed for substituted service in respect of 16:52:30 IST Reason: respondent No.10 is allowed. Proof of publication be filed within four weeks.
Item No.7 -2-Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submits that it has wrongly been mentioned in the office report that the petitioner has not filed application for substituted service in respect of respondent No.9. According to her, application for substituted service has been filed in respect of respondent No.9. Registry to verify and process accordingly.
Respondent No.6 has been deleted vide order dated 25.4.2019.
Service is complete on respondent Nos.4, 5, 11 and 12 but none has entered appearance.
It appears from the office report that vakalatnama on behalf of respondent No.2 has been filed on 23.10.2018 but counter affidavit has not been filed on behalf of the said respondent. It is not made clear whether opportunity to file counter affidavit has already been declined in respect of respondent No.2. Nonetheless, since vakalatnama has been filed on 23.10.2018 counter affidavit has not been filed till today and since there is neither written application for extension of time to file pleadings in terms of Order V Rule 1(22), Supreme Court Rules, 2013 nor is there oral request to that effect, it appears that the said respondent is not willing to file counter affidavit and, therefore, opportunity to file counter affidavit stands declined.
List again on 14.1.2021.
ANIL LAXMAN PANSARE Registrar