AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ranjit Singh, J
Mr. Simanta Das, who has been appearing for respondent No. 1, today pleads no instructions as he has received no response from the said respondent despite repeated attempts to contact him. The Counsel accordingly prays for his discharge. Mr. Simanta Das further states that he has been putting appearance to represent Ms. Reema Khorana on the basis of telephonic instruction.
It may be appropriate to note that the Counsel after having appeared for the said respondent on three different dates seeks his discharge on the ground that he has no instruction. It is expected from the Counsel that they should appear to represent a party on proper representation in the form of Vakalatnama. Once the Counsel is seen appearing without proper authority there may not be a need to seek discharge. Respondent No. 1 is accordingly proceeded ex parte. None appears for the other respondents as well.
The appeal filed by M/s. Cygnus Developers (India) Pvt. Ltd. was dismissed with costs by this Tribunal on 5th November, 2013. An application (Misc. Case No. 821 of 2014) has now been filed by Ratnagar Commercial Pvt. Ltd. with a prayer to direct respondent No. 1 to pay costs of Rs. 5,17,040/- which is stated to be litigation expenses. As per the applicant, he has incurred expenses of Rs. 4,96,700 in respect of payment of professional fee to its Counsel and Rs. 20,340/- as miscellaneous expenses relating to various lis. In support of the claim in the application, certificate from Ratnagar Commercial Pvt. Ltd. is annexed apart from other documents.
Notice in this application was issued. None has appeared for respondents Nos. 2 to 4. The Counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 has withdrawn from the proceedings today.
The prayer made in the application primarily is to execute that part of the order whereby the appeal was dismissed with costs. The applicant was not the only party in the appeal. Apart from the applicant, Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency (REDA), Lodhi Road, Delhi, S.B. International Ltd., Guwahati and Navalco Commodities Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata were the other respondents. In this background, the applicant alone cannot claim "the cost which was allowed by this Tribunal. I am, therefore, not inclined to go into the validity of the claim raised in the present application and leave it open to the applicant to seek execution of the order passed by this Tribunal in accordance with law. The application (Misc. Case No. 821 of 2014), however is dismissed.