Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Sociedade Timblo Irmaos Limitada vs The State Of Goa on 12 March, 2021
ITEM NO.25 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. RAJESH KUMAR GOEL
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 15038/2020
SOCIEDADE TIMBLO IRMAOS LIMITADA Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF GOA & ANR. Respondent(s)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.128731/2020-EXEMPTION FROM FILING
C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.128733/2020-PERMISSION TO
FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES )
WITH
SLP(C) No. 2430/2021 (IX)
(IA No.128900/2020-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA
No.128902/2020-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT
and IA No.128899/2020-PERMISSION TO FILE PETITION (SLP/TP/WP/..)
and IA No.128903/2020-PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES)
SLP(C) No. 2172/2021 (IX)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.129743/2020-CONDONATION OF DELAY
IN FILING and IA No.129744/2020-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE
IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.129741/2020-PERMISSION TO FILE PETITION
(SLP/TP/WP/..) and IA No.129745/2020-PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES)
SLP(C) No. 15149/2020 (IX)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.130270/2020-EXEMPTION FROM FILING
C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.130271/2020-PERMISSION TO
FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES)
Date : 12-03-2021 This petition was called on for hearing today.
For Petitioner(s)
Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, AOR
For Respondent(s)
Mr. Prashant Bhushan, AOR
Mr. Arun R. Pednekar, Adv.
Ms.Mukti Chowdhary, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel through Video Conference, the
Court made the following
Signature Not Verified
O R D E R
Digitally signed by Indu Marwah Date: 2021.03.15 SLP(C) No. 15038 and 15149/2020 16:40:58 IST Reason: Service is complete on respondent Nos.1 and 2 but none has entered appearance.
Item No.25 -2-Ld. counsel appearing for the State of Goa and Directors pointed out that vakalatnama on behalf of some of the respondents in the respective matters has already been filed yesterday itself. Registry to verify. In case vakalatnama has been filed by some of the respondents, respondents are granted four weeks’ time to file counter affidavit.
Ld. counsel appearing for respondent No.18 in SLP(C) No. 2430/2021 and SLP(C) No. 2172/2021 submits that she will file vakalatnama on behalf of respondent No.18 during the course of the day. If it is so, counter affidavit be filed within four weeks thereafter.
Ld. counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the matter is required to be listed on urgent basis before the Hon’ble Court. My attention has been drawn towards the order dated 2.2.2021 passed by the Hon’ble Court whereby it was directed that notice be issued in both the matters returnable within four weeks.
The submission made on behalf of the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted as of now as in view of the Office Order F.No.11/Judl./2019 dated 12.4.2019 even if notice has been issued returnable within a fixed period, the matter cannot be ordered to be listed before the Hon’ble Court until and unless the pleadings are complete. Item No.25 -3-
One of the submission made on behalf of the Ld. counsel for the petitioner is that respondent No.13 in both the matters is Director of respondent No.12 and respondent No.12 has already been served, therefore, respondent No.13 may kindly be treated as deemed to have been served. Even this submission cannot be accepted. Respondent No.12 being Limited Company, is having separate legal entity. Even if the respondent No.13 happens to be the Director of respondent No.12, still it is the responsibility of the petitioner to serve respondent No.13 separately. Hence, fresh steps alongwith fresh particulars be taken within two weeks for effecting service on respondent No.13 in both the matters.
Ld. Counsel for the petitioner also to take fresh steps alongwith fresh particulars of respondent No.3 in SLP(C) No.2430/2021 within two weeks. Ld. counsel for the petitioner makes request for dasti service in respect of the unserved respondents. Dasti, in addition, is allowed.
My attention has also been drawn towards the one letter filed by the petitioner requesting for dispensation of service in respect of respondent Nos.6 to 17 in both the matters. It appears that these respondents have already been served. At this stage, Ld. counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner shall move an appropriate Item No.25 -4- application seeking deletion of these respondents. Two weeks’ time is granted for moving such application. Four weeks’ time is granted to the respondents for filing counter affidavit, who have already filed vakalatnama.
Service is complete on the remaining respondents. List again on 23.4.2021.
RAJESH KUMAR GOEL Registrar