AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
RFA No.309/1980
CM APPL.No.8402/2004
This is an application u/s 340 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission to withdraw the present application. The application is dismissed as withdrawn.
CM APPL. No. 1730/2003
This is an application for filing and placing on record amended memo of parties as per Supreme Court record. There is no objection to the present application. The same is allowed subject to all just exceptions. It is accordingly disposed of.
CM APPL. No. 2179/2003 & 2180/2003
These are applications under Order XXII Rule 4 and u/s 5 of the Limitation Act for bringing on record the legal representatives of appellant No.29(a). No reply to these applications has been filed. Learned counsel for the non-applicants state that the application may be allowed for the purpose of deciding the present appeal and without admitting that the original appellant had any right, which has been inherited by the legal representative. In view of the statement made, the applications are allowed and legal representatives of appellant No.29(a) are brought on record.
The applications stand disposed of.
CM APPL.No.892/2003
This is an application under Order XXII Rule 4 for bringing on record legal representatives of appellant No.10. No reply to the said application has been filed. Learned counsel for the non-applicant state that the application may be allowed but the statement should not construed as admitting the claim/right of appellant No.10. We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on the claim made by the appellant. The application is allowed and disposed of on above terms.
CM APPL.Nos.7384/2004 and 7386/2004
These are applications for bringing on record legal representatives of appellant No.29(f) and Section 5 of Limitation act for condonation of delay in filing the first application. No reply to these applications has been filed. Learned counsel for the non-applicants state that they have no objection if the present applications are allowed but the statement should not be construed as admitting the claim/right of appellant No.29(f) or his legal representative on merits. In view of the statement made by the non-applicants, the applications are allowed and disposed of on above terms.
CM APPL.No.13033/2004 & 13034/2004
These are applications for bringing on record legal representatives of appellant No.35 and Section 5 of Limitation act for condonation of delay in filing the first application. No reply to these applications has been filed. Learned counsel for the non-applicants state that they have no objection if the present applications are allowed but the statement should not be construed as admitting any claim/right of appellant No.35 or his legal representative on merits. In view of the statement made by the non-applicants, the applications are allowed and disposed of on above terms.
CM APPL.No.13035/2004 & 13036/2004
These are applications for bringing on record legal representatives of appellant No.63 and Section 5 of Limitation act for condonation of delay in filing of the first application. No reply to these applications has been filed. Learned counsel for the non-applicants state that they have no objection if the present applications are allowed but the statement should not be construed as admitting any claim/right of appellant No.63 or his legal representative on merits. In view of the statement made by the non-applicants, the applications are allowed and disposed of on above terms.
CM APPL. No. 13198/2004
This is an application under Order XXII Rule 4 for bringing on record the legal representative of appellant No.39. No reply to the application has been filed. Learned counsel for the non-applicants state that they have no objection if the present application is allowed but this statement should not be construed as admission or concession on the claim on merits made by appellant No.39. In view of the said statement, the applications are allowed and disposed of on above terms.
CM APPL.No.14876/2004
Learned counsel for the applicant states that the application has rendered infructuous and may be disposed of as such. The application is dismissed as infructuous.
CM APPL.No.14877/2004
Learned counsel for the applicant states that the application has rendered infructuous and may be disposed of as such. The application is dismissed as infructuous.
CM APPL.No.2843/2005
This is an application for early hearing. The application is infructuous and is accordingly disposed of.
CM APPL.No.7203/2005
Mr. Dharam Bir Singh, who is present in person and is identified by his counsel Mr. Sunil Chauhan, Advocate, does not wish to press this application and seeks permission to withdraw the same. The application is dismissed as withdrawn.
CM APPL. No. 13393/2005
This is an application under Order XXII Rule 4 for bringing on record the legal representative of appellant No.50. No reply to the application has been filed. Learned counsel for the non-applicants state that they have no objection if the present applications be allowed but this statement should not be construed as admission by the non-applicants on the claim on merits made of the case. In view of the said statement, the application is allowed and disposed of on above terms.
CM APPL.No.689/2007
Learned counsel for the applicant seems permission to withdraw the present application. The same is dismissed as withdrawn.
CM APPL.Nos.5947/2007 & 5949/2007
This is an applications for bringing on record the legal representative of appellant No.41 along with an application u/s 5 of Limitation act for condonation of delay in filing the first application. No reply to these applications has been filed. Learned counsel for the non-applicants state that they have no objection if the present applications are allowed but the statement should not be construed as admitting the claim of appellant No.49 or his legal representative on merits. In view of the statement made by the non-applicants, the applications are allowed and disposed of on above terms.
CM APPL.No.3676/2009
Learned counsel for the applicant states that the application has rendered infructuous and may be disposed of as such. The application is dismissed as infructuous.
CM APPL.No.5175/2009, 5176/2009, 5177/2009, 5179/2009 & 5180/2009
No one is present for the applicants to press these applications. The applications are dismissed in default and for non-prosecution.
CM APPL. No. 7109/2009
This is an application under Order XXII Rule 4 for bringing on record the legal representative of appellant No.55(a). No reply to the application has been filed. Learned counsel for the non-applicants state that they have no objection to the present application is allowed but this statement should not be construed as admission by the non-applicants on the claim or merits of the case. In view of the said statement, the application is allowed and disposed of on above terms.
CM APPL.Nos.14485/2009 & 14486/2009
This is an application for bringing on record the legal representative of appellant No.63(b) along with an application u/s 5 of Limitation act for condonation of delay in filing the first application. No reply to these applications has been filed. Learned counsel for the non-applicants state that they have no objection to the present applications are allowed but the statement should not be construed as admitting the claim of appellant No.63(b) or his legal representative on merits. In view of the statement made by the non-applicants, the applications are allowed and disposed of on above terms.
CM APPL.No.13453/2010
Learned counsel for the applicant states that the application has rendered infructuous and may be disposed of as such. The application is dismissed as infructuous.
CM APPL.No.3882/2011 & 3883/2011
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission to withdraw the present applications. The applications are dismissed as withdrawn.
CM APPL.No.9497/2011 & 9498/2011
Learned counsel for the applicant states that the applications have rendered infructuous and may be disposed of as such. The applications are dismissed as infructuous.
CM APPL.No.16461/2011
Learned counsel for the applicant states that the application has rendered infructuous and may be disposed of as such. The application is dismissed as infructuous.
CM APPL.No.12012/2012
Learned counsel for the applicant states that this application is rendered infructuous but she would like to rely on Annexure ''A'' which is in nature of a note or written submission. The application is dismissed as infructuous but the applicant will be permitted to rely upon ''Annexure A'' at the time of arguments.
RFA Nos.309/1980, 310/1980, 356/1980 & 357/1980
Mr. S.S. Panwar, Advocate, is present in Court and states that he has filed power of attorney on behalf of following appellants:-
1.
Smt.ChandraWati
10 (a)
2.
Nar Singh
10 (b)
3.
Ram Singh
10 (C)
4.
Naval Singh
18 (b)
5.
Ashok Kumar
18 (C)
6.
Smt. Ram Piari
19 (a)
7.
SurajBhan
19 (b)
8.
Smt.SatyaRani
19 (C)
9.
Smt.Sunita
19 (d)
10.
Rohtas
23
11.
DilBagh Singh
28 (b)
12.
Hawa Singh
28 (C)
13.
Ms.RoshniDevi
28 (d)
14.
Ms.Aruna
39 (a)
15.
Ms.Jyoti
39 (b)
16.
Satish Kumar
39 (d)
17.
Sailesh Kumar
39 (e)
18.
Ms.Saroj
39 (f)
19.
Ms.Sunita
39 (g)
Ms. Maldeep Sidhu, Advocate, states that she has no information that the said appellants have engaged Mr. S.S. Panwar, Advocate. She states that the said appellants have already encased the cheques and are signatory to the application under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the CPC 1908 and also have executed the affidavits in support of the said application.
Mr. S.S. Panwar, Advocate states that appellants mentioned in the aforesaid list do not want to settle the matter. He states that the said appellants have already sent Registered AD notice to Mr. Ram Narayan and Mr. Sanjay Gupta. Copy of the notice has also sent to the counsel.
It is noted that Mr. S.S. Panwar presence is recorded in the order dated 19.07.2012 when he had appeared for some of the appellants on 19.07.2012. On the said date, the appeals could not be taken up for hearing as one of us (Sanjiv Khanna, J.) was held up in a full bench matter.
Mr. Panwar states that he wants to file objections or an application and the appeals may be adjourned. Mr. Panwar, Advocate, may file the objections/application within seven days. Reply, thereto, will be filed within ten days thereafter. Copy of the application/reply be furnished to all parties including DDA and Mr. Govind Verma, Advocate.
The clients of Mr. S.S. Panwar, Advocate, will pay a cost of Rs. 15,000/- for today''s adjournment, which will be deposited in the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee within one week from today.
Amended memo of parties will be filed by the appellant No.1 within a period of two weeks from today. List on 11th October, 2012.