Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Supreme Court - Daily Orders

Security Printing Corporation Of India ... vs Vijay D. Kasbe on 18 February, 2020

     ITEM NO.25                         REGISTRAR COURT. 2                    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. RAJIV KALRA

     Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C)                   No(s).     1891-1900/2019

     SECURITY PRINTING CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. & ORS. Petitioner(s)

                                                    VERSUS

     VIJAY D. KASBE & ORS.                                                  Respondent(s)


     Date : 18-02-2020 These petitions were called on for hearing today.



     For Petitioner(s)
                                       Mr. Rahul Shyam Bhandari, AOR
                                       Mr. Siddharth Pandey, Adv.

     For Respondent(s)
                                        Mr. Sandeep Sudhakar Deshmukh, AOR
                                        Mr. Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure, AOR



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

Four weeks’ time, as a last chance is granted to the appearing Respondents to file the Counter Affidavit, who have not filed the same.

Service deemed complete in respect of Respondent Nos. 135, 146 and 149 as letter has been received by post, but no one has chosen to enter appearance on their behalf.

Digitally signed by Rajiv Kalra Date: 2020.02.18

Notice could not be served to Respondent Nos. 193 and 198 and 14:57:20 IST Reason: same has been received back “undelivered”. Hence, Ld. counsel for the petitioner shall file the fresh particulars of the above ITEM NO.25 REGISTRAR COURT. 2 SECTION IX respondents and he shall also take fresh steps for the service of notice to them within a period of two weeks.

Ld. counsel for the petitioner has not taken requisite steps and also failed to furnish fresh particulars for effecting service upon Respondent Nos. 26 and 161.

Ld. counsel for the petitioner has already filed an application for substitution in respect of deceased Respondent Nos. 123, 198 and 200 which is defective. Instead of curing the same, Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner has filed a letter in this regard. Same be placed before the Hon’ble Judge in Chambers for further directions. Await Orders. List thereafter.

RAJIV KALRA Registrar pm