Madhya Pradesh High Court
Spicejet Limited vs Airports Authority Of India on 8 July, 2021
Author: Virender Singh
Bench: Virender Singh
1 MA-1178-2021
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
MA-1178-2021
(SPICEJET LIMITED Vs AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA AND OTHERS)
3
Jabalpur, Dated : 08-07-2021
Heard through Video Conferencing.
Shri Varun Chopra, counsel for the appellant.
Shri Anoop Nair, counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Service on respondents No.3 to 8 is awaited.
I.A. No.3503/2021 is an application filed by the appellant for granting interim relief and that has been disposed of vide order dated 07.05.2021.
Though, I.A. No.3504/2021 has been filed for seeking exemption from filing duly notarized affidavits, certified copy of the impugned order and advocate welfare fee on Vakalatnama.
This Court is not empowered to exempt the litigant from filing advocate welfare fee. No convincing reason has been assigned for not filing certified copy of the impugned order or the notarized affidavit; therefore, after hearing the parties, on due consideration, I.A. No.3504/2021 is dismissed.
However, two weeks time is granted to the appellant to cure the defects.
After curing the defects noted above, learned counsel for the appellant may submit process fee for service of notice on respondents No.3 to 8 within a week therehence.
On payment of process fee the notices be issued on respondents No.3 to 8 and they be made returnable within four weeks.
Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that vide order dated 07.05.2021 an ad-interim stay has been granted by this Court on encashment of bank guarantee, therefore, this is an urgent matter and needs early hearing. He further submitted that only respondent Nos.1 and 2 are affected by the stay granted by the Court and are contesting this matter. Therefore, the matter may be heard even in absence of respondent No.3 to 8. He asserted that 2 MA-1178-2021 looking to the urgency, the matter may be listed within a week.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the stay order has been passed after hearing and in presence of respondent Nos.1 and 2, therefore, there is no urgency in the case. He further submitted that senior counsel is not available today, therefore the case be adjourned.
The learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 submitted that only interim stay has been granted by this Court and his application for vacating stay and the application for granting stay filed by the appellant is still pending. He prayed that both the applications are required to be heard at the earliest.
Learned counsel for the appellant seriously objected the prayer and submitted that he requires atleast three weeks time to file reply of the application filed by the respondents for vacating the stay.
After hearing the parties, 10 days time is granted to the appellant to file reply.
List this case on 19th July, 2021.
(VIRENDER SINGH) JUDGE Loretta Digitally signed by VINOD VISHWAKARMA Date: 2021.07.14 18:20:35 +05'30'