AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
11 paragraphs · 204 wordsNo one appears for R-1 in B.P. No. 559 & 561/2020. On last occasion, Ms. Uma Devi, Advocate appeared for R-1 in these two petitions before
Hon’ble Tribunal and undertook to file hard copy of vakalatanma in one week time. Registry is directed to verify if hard copy of vakalatnama
has been filed by Ms. Uma Devi for R-1 in these petitions.   Â
Ms. Jinnu Sara George, Advocate appears for R-2 in all three matters and states that she has already filed her reply.   Registry has informed
that the reply, as filed by R-2 in these matters, are not accompanied by duly verified affidavit and that the objection has been conveyed to the
Advocate for R-2. Ms. Jinnu seeks three weeks time to file her reply affidavit.  Time given.   Let rejoinder, if any, be filed by petitioner
in three weeks, after filing of reply by R-2.
No one appears for R-1 in B.P. No. 560/2020 also.  As prayed for by Ms. Sakshi Chamoli, Advocate for petitioner and in terms of order dated
10.12.2020 passed by Hon’ble Tribunal, this matter now proceeds ex-parte against R-1. List all matters on 12th March, 2021 for
directions.  Â
.