Delhi High Court - Orders
South Delhi Municipal Corporation vs Tech Mahindra Limited on 3 March, 2020
Author: Rekha Palli
Bench: Rekha Palli
$~28
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ O.M.P. (COMM) 246/2017
SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Sr.Adv with
Mr.Sandeep Bajaj, Ms.Aakanksha Mehra,
Ms.Aditi Pundhir, Advs.
versus
TECH MAHINDRA LIMITED ..... Respondent
Through Ms.Rashmi Gogoi with Ms.Vaishali
Kalera, Ms.Ambika Mathur, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI
ORDER
% 03.03.2020 IA 17473/2019 (for condonation of delay)
1. This application filed by the petitioner seeks condonation of 38 days delay in filing the written submission.
2. Issue notice. Learned counsel for the respondent accepts notice and fairly does not oppose the application.
3. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and the delay of 38 days in filing the written submission is condoned.
4. The application stands disposed of.
IA 2977/2020 (for condonation of delay)
5. This application filed by the petitioner seeks condonation of 53 days delay in filing reply to the written submission of the respondent.
6. Issue notice. Learned counsel for the respondent accepts notice and fairly does not oppose the application.
7. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed Signature Not Verified DigitallySigned By:MANJU BHATT Signing Date:07.03.2020 16:48:49 and the delay of 53 days in filing reply to the written submission of the respondent is condoned.
8. The application stands disposed of.
O.M.P. (COMM) 246/2017 & IA 907/2018 (for interim relief)
9. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has received a copy of the written submissions filed by the respondent only recently and, therefore, needs time to peruse the same before making submissions.
10. Learned counsel for the respondent while not opposing the request for adjournment submits that though the petitioner claims to have deposited the awarded amount, the amount deposited by the petitioner is in fact not in consonance with the award, therefore, the petitioner ought to be directed to deposit the balance amount also. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner vehemently disputes the aforesaid averment and submits that the deposit made by the petitioner is strictly in consonance with the orders passed by the Supreme Court. This aspect will be considered on the next date.
11. At request, list on 06.07.2020.
REKHA PALLI, J MARCH 03, 2020/sr Signature Not Verified DigitallySigned By:MANJU BHATT Signing Date:07.03.2020 16:48:49