Delhi High Court - Orders
Tata Steel Bsl Limited vs Venus Recruiter Private Limited & Ors on 25 May, 2021
Author: Jasmeet Singh
Bench: Chief Justice, Jasmeet Singh
$~SB-1 & SB-2.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ LPA 37/2021 & CM APPL.2664-2666/2021
TATA STEEL BSL LIMITED ..... Appellant
versus
VENUS RECRUITER PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS...... Respondents
+ LPA 43/2021 & CM APPL.3196/2021, 3198/2021
UNION OF INDIA ..... Appellant
versus
VENUS RECRUITER PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS...... Respondents
Present: Mr. Ramji Srinivasan, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Vijayendra Pratap
Singh, Ms. Anindita Roy Chowdhury, Ms.Vatsala Rai,
Mr.Shivkrit Rai, Ms.Rajshree Chaudhary & Ms.Simran Bhatt,
Advs. for appellant in Item No.1.
Mr. Chetan Sharma, ASG with Mr.Anurag Ahluwalia, CGSC;
Mr.Abhigyan Siddhant & Mr.Nitnem Singh Ghuman,
Mr.Vinay Yadav, Mr.Akshay Gadeock, Mr. Amit Gupta &
Mr.Sahaj Garg, Advs. for the appellant in Item No.2
Mr.Kapil Sibal, Sr. Adv. and Mr.Sajan Poovaiya, Senior
Advocates with Mr.Rishi Aggarwala, Mr.Parminder Singh &
Ms.Aarushi Tiku, Advocates for R-1 in Item Nos.1&2.
Mr. Chetan Sharma, ASG with Mr. Anurag Ahluwalia, CGSC;
Mr.Abhigyan Siddhant & Mr.Nitnem Singh Ghuman,
Mr.Vinay Yadav, Mr. Akshay Gadeock, Mr. Amit Gupta &
Mr.Sahaj Garg, Advs. for R-2 in Item No.1.
Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, Sr. Adv. with Samarth K. Luthra,
Mr.Siddharth H. Raval, Mr.Areeb Amanullah, Mr. Karthik
Sundar, Advs. for R-3 in Item No.1 and for R-2 in Item No.2
LPA 37/2021 & LPA 43/2021 Page 1 of 4
Signature Not Verified
AMIT NARAYAN
BHARTHUAR
Location:
Signing Date:31.05.2021
14:37:30
Mr. Vijayendra Pratap Singh, Ms. Anindita Roy Chowdhury,
Ms. Simran Bhatt & Mr. Ravilochan, Advs. for R-3 in Item
No.2
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH
ORDER
% 25.05.2021 Proceedings have been conducted through video conferencing.
1. List these matters on 15.07.2021 before the roster bench.
2. Unless and until an order of this court specifically mentions that the matter be treated as "part heard", the Registry shall not on its own list the matter after change of roster, before the same judge treating the matter as part heard matter. It is expected from the Registry that it should not presume itself and treat a matter as part heard even though nothing is mentioned as "part heard" in the order. This practice should be stopped forthwith. The matter shall be listed as per roster unless in the order of the Court it is mentioned that this matter be treated as a part heard matter.
3. Previously also we have passed several orders indicating that unless and until in the order of the Court it is mentioned that this matter be treated as "part heard", no matter can be presumed to be a "part heard" matter, otherwise, even after change of roster the earlier matters will be listed out of the roster and will be placed before the same judge. One such order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA 206/2020 & LPA 247/2020 LPA 37/2021 & LPA 43/2021 Page 2 of 4 Signature Not Verified AMIT NARAYAN BHARTHUAR Location: Signing Date:31.05.2021 14:37:30 dated 26.03.2021 reads as under:
"Previous orders indicate that this Court has not passed any specific order to treat these matters as 'part heard'. Hence, these matters are wrongly listed as part heard.
Accordingly, these matters be listed on 30th April, 2021 as per roster. It ought to be kept in mind by the Registry that unless there is specific order passed by the Court stating that the matter is part heard, the same should not be treated as part heard at all."
4. Similarly, another order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) 11859/2019 & W.P.(C) 12121/2019 dated 26.03.2021 reads as under:
"It appears that these matters have been erroneously listed as 'part heard' before this Bench. It is pertinent to mention that this Division Bench has not passed any specific order designating these matters as 'part heard'.
Accordingly, these matters be listed on 30th April, 2021 as per roster. It ought to be kept in mind by the Registry that unless there is specific order passed by the Court stating that the matter is part heard, the same cannot be treated as part heard at all."
5. In view of this fact, these matters are not part heard but have been listed before this Bench. We, therefore, direct Registry to list these maters on the next date of hearing before regular Bench as per roster. There is no need by the Registry of this Court to presume that the matter is "part heard"
unless in the order there is a mention that the matter is "part heard".LPA 37/2021 & LPA 43/2021 Page 3 of 4 Signature Not Verified AMIT NARAYAN BHARTHUAR Location: Signing Date:31.05.2021 14:37:30
Copy of this order be sent to the Registrar General of this Court for compliance.
CHIEF JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH, J MAY 25, 2021 ns LPA 37/2021 & LPA 43/2021 Page 4 of 4 Signature Not Verified AMIT NARAYAN BHARTHUAR Location: Signing Date:31.05.2021 14:37:30