Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Punjab National Bank vs Atin Arora on 9 March, 2021
ITEM NO.25 REGISTRAR COURT. 1 THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE
SECTION XVI
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). 15347-
15348/2020
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
ATIN ARORA & ANR. Respondent(s)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. )
Date : 09-03-2021 These petitions were called on for hearing today.
For Petitioner(s)
Ms. Arti Singh, AOR
Mr. Aakashdeep Singh Roda, Adv.
Mr. Basant Pal Singh, Adv.
For Respondent(s)
Mr. Rohit Amit Sthalekar, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel through Video Conference, the
Court made the following
O R D E R
Perused the record.
As per the office report, respondent No.1 has been served but no appearance has been filed on behalf of respondent No.1 and the service of notice is not complete on respondent No.2.
At this stage, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner pointed Signature Not Verified out that both the respondents have already been served and Digitally signed by Indu Marwah Date: 2021.03.17 10:28:48 IST Reason: even the vakalatnama/appearance on behalf of both the respondents has been filed yesterday itself which is Item No.25 -2- mentioned in the subsequent office report uploaded in the evening yesterday.
As of now, this Court is having only one office report wherein it is mentioned that respondent No.1 is served and service is not complete on respondent No.2. On enquiry being made and verification from the Branch, it is revealed that another office report was updated (revised) but it is not mentioned that it is revised one. Now the copy of that subsequent office report has been placed before me which says that Ld. Advocate, Mr.Rohit Amit Sthalekar has on 8.3.2021 filed vakalatnama/appearance on behalf of both the respondents and the service is complete.
This is very surprising that the subsequent office report was not sent to this Court for the reasons best known to the officials/officers concerned. Even the subsequent office report has been prepared in very casual manner. The order dated 25.1.2021 passed by the Hon’ble Court would indicate that respondents were given time to file counter affidavit within a period of three weeks from the date of service of notice. Subsequent office report is referring that appearance/vakalatnama has been filed on 8.3.2021 but again it is silent as to when the service of notice was effected upon the respondents. As per the first office report, respondent No.1 appears to have been served on 5.2.2021, the period of three weeks qua respondent No.1 has Item No.25 -3- already expired but there is nothing on record suggesting as to when the service of notice was effected upon respondent No.2. Unnecessarily the precious time of the Court has been wasted. Therefore, the Registrar supervising the Section is requested to get enquired the matter, as to who was at fault for not apprising the court/sharing the subsequent office report and not making the office report properly. The Branch is further directed to see as to when the service of notice was effected on respondent No.2. If the time has not elapsed for filing the counter affidavit as directed by the Hon’ble Court vide order dated 25.1.2021, the respondent No.2 may file counter affidavit within the time as granted and, in case the time has already elapsed let the matter be processed for listing before the Hon’ble Court, as per rules.
RAJESH KUMAR GOEL Registrar