Delhi High Court - Orders
Viceroy Engineering vs Smiths Detection Veecon Systems ... on 11 January, 2022
Author: Vibhu Bakhru
Bench: Vibhu Bakhru
$~15(2022)
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ O.M.P. (COMM) 302/2019 & IA No.475/2022
VICEROY ENGINEERING ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Percival Billimoria, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Vikram Singh, Mr. Gandharv
Anand & Mr. Archit Singh, Advs.
Versus
SMITHS DETECTION VEECON SYSTEMS
PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Respondent
Through Ms. Payal Chawla with Ms. Snigdha
Dash and Ms. Hina Shaheen, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
ORDER
% 11.01.2022 [Hearing Held Through Video Conferencing] IA No.470/2022 (for exemption)
1. Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The applications are disposed of.
IA No.469/2022 (of the petitioner for restoration of the petition dismissed in default by order dated 27.10.2021)
3. The petitioner has filed the present application seeking restoration of the above-captioned petition that was dismissed in default on 27.10.2021.
4. The order dated 27.10.2021 notes that none had appeared on behalf of the petitioner on 27.10.2021 as well as on three hearings prior to that.
5. It is seen that the petition was first listed on 05.08.2019 and on the very first date, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had sought an adjournment on the ground that the main counsel, who was to argue the matter, was unwell. Accordingly, the petition was re-listed on 26.08.2019. The matter was thereafter heard on 26.08.2019 and 27.08.2019. The order Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DUSHYANT RAWAL dated 27.08.2019 indicates that the Court had noted that there were certain objections raised by the Registry regarding the initial filing, which would have an impact on the issue of delay. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay was listed for directions on 29.08.2019. On that date, a formal notice on the application seeking condonation of delay was issued and the matter was listed on 15.10.2019.
6. On 15.10.2019, a request for an adjournment was made, which was allowed and the petition was listed on 29.11.2019 and thereafter on 13.12.2019. On 13.12.2019, once again, a request for an adjournment was made on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner. It was stated that the counsel was held up in another court. At his request, the petition was listed on 16.12.2019 and thereafter, on 10.02.2020. On the next date of hearing, that is, on 27.02.2020, none appeared on behalf of the petitioner and the hearing was deferred to 31.03.2020. The petition was again listed on 07.01.2021 but none appeared on behalf of the petitioner on that date as well. In the interest of justice, the petition was not dismissed but re-listed on 02.03.2021. On that date, an adjournment slip was moved on behalf of the petitioner but none had appeared for the petitioner. The petition was thereafter listed on 27.10.2021. None appeared on behalf of the petitioner on 27.10.2021 as well.
7. The proceedings clearly indicate that the petitioner has been dragging its feet in this matter. This Court is unable to accept that the delay is not intentional. Notwithstanding the same, this Court considers it apposite to allow the present petition albeit with payment of costs of ₹1,00,000/- to be deposited with Delhi High Court Legal Aid Services Committee within a period of one week from today. Subject to the petitioner depositing the cost, Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DUSHYANT RAWAL the petition is restored to the position as obtaining on 27.10.2021. O.M.P. (COMM) 302/2019
8. Subject to the petitioner depositing the costs aforesaid, list on 03.02.2022.
9. It is clarified that the application seeking condonation of delay shall also be heard on that date.
VIBHU BAKHRU, J JANUARY 11, 2022 'gsr' Click here to check corrigendum, if any Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DUSHYANT RAWAL