Bharti Telemedia Ltd vs Eagle Sight Media Pvt Ltd & Ors

Mr. Shanthi Bhushan, Advocate who earlier appeared for respondent nos. 1 and 2 till 7.9.2021 and did not appear on 5.10.2021 and thereafter, has today appeared only to seek discharge from the duty to represent respondent nos. 1 and 2 in this proceeding on the ground that said respondents have chosen not to give any instructions to him when he wanted instructions for filing evidence affidavit.

In the order of 7.9.2021, it has been recorded that respondent nos. 1 and 2 wanted time to engage some other lawyer and take appropriate steps in the matter. On that account, time for filing evidence affidavit was extended. However, on the next date, Mr. Vibhav Srivastava who was engaged to represent respondent nos. 1 and 2 appeared and only prayed for further time for filing either evidence affidavit or an appropriate application to explain the inability of the respondents concerned to file evidence affidavit.  By way of extraordinary accommodation, two weeks' time was granted on 5.10.2021.  Learned Registrar has thereafter referred the matter to the Bench.

Even till date neither evidence affidavit nor any application containing explanation has been filed.

Today, Mr. Vibhav Srivastava, Advocate submits that he was not given either vakalatnama or instructions and therefore, he cannot represent resopndent nos. 1 and 2.

However, Mr. C M Angadi, Advocate has today appeared only for respondent no. 2 and submits that he has prepared the evidence affidavit on behalf of respondent no. 2 and shall file it by tomorrow.

In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, there is no difficulty in accepting the prayer of Mr. Shanthi Bhushan. He is accordingly, discharged on his own request from representing respondent nos. 1 and 2 in this proceeding. Although Mr. Vibhav Srivastava, has not made any formal prayer because he has not been given vakalatnama till date, his name also shall not appear henceforth, as counsel for any of the respondents.

Respondent no. 1 has chosen not to appear even today.  Hence, the right of respondent no. 1 to file evidence affidavit is closed.  Respondent no. 2 may file evidence affidavit by tomorrow failing which his right to file evidence affidavit shall also stand closed.

Today, Ms. Amrita Sharma who earlier appeared for respondent no. 3 has appeared again with Mr. Rajat Jonathan Shaw. The stand of learned counsel for respondent no. 3 is that reply has already been filed taking the stand that respondent no. 3 is not a necessary party.  It has further been submitted that this respondent is not in a position to access the relevant records  any more and therefore, it is unable to file any further affidavit by way of evidence. The said stand is recorded.

In view of this order, the matter relating to filing of evidence affidaivt stands finally decided.

Let matter be placed before the Court of Registrar on 30.11.2021 for passing necessary orders, if required, to make the petition ready for hearing.