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]

Delhi High Court - Orders

Naresh Kumar Gupta & Co. Pvt. Ltd vs Delhi Development Authority And Ors on 7 February, 2019

Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw

Bench: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw

$~1
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+     CS(COMM) 533/2016 & CC(COMM) 119/2017

      NARESH KUMAR GUPTA & CO. PVT. LTD          ..... Plaintiff
                  Through: Mr. Shravan Kumar Shukla, Adv.

                                Versus

     DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ORS. ..... Defendants
                       Through: Mr. Prashant Mehta, Adv. for DDA.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
                                ORDER

% 07.02.2019 IA No.8723/2018 (of defendant DDA for filing additional documents)

1. None appears for the plaintiff.

2. The counsel for the applicant/defendant/counter claimant Delhi Development Authority (DDA) has been heard.

3. At this stage, Mr. Shravan Kumar Shukla, Advocate appears for the plaintiff but does not know anything and only seeks a passover.

4. Considering the nature of the application, the counsel should have been prepared and the matters cannot be passed over and which passovers are the root cause for the suits remaining pending indefinitely. Even otherwise, once the counsel for the plaintiff has associate advocates, there is no reason why the associate advocates should be used only for seeking passovers and adjournments.

5. The applicant/defendant DDA, after the framing of issues on 10th November, 2008 and after conclusion of the plaintiff's evidence, seeks to CS(COMM) 533/2016 Page 1 of 2 file an additional document, the date of which is not stated, neither in the application nor in the Index of documents filed. Both have been drafted in a very sketchy fashion, without requisite pleadings and particulars.

6. A perusal of the document shows the same to be the photocopy comprising of two sheets only. However, the counsel for the applicant/defendant DDA states that the document is of 51 pages.

7. It appears that the correct document also has not been filed.

8. Filing of such applications not only delays the disposal of the suits and the Counter-Claims, but also wastes the time of the Court.

9. Dismissed.

CS(COMM) 533/2016 & CC(COMM) No.119/2017

10. List before the Joint Registrar for scheduling the dates for recording evidence on 26th February, 2019.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

FEBRUARY 07, 2019 'bs'..

CS(COMM) 533/2016 Page 2 of 2