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
5 paragraphs · 282 wordsBhaskar Raj Pradhan, J
The record reveals that Mr. Saurabh Tamang, learned counsel filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of the respondent-Sikkim University on 19.08.2021 which is on record. Thereafter, another Vakalatnama was filed by Mr. Saurav Singh, Mr. Johnson Subba and Mr. Tenzing Thinlay Lepcha, learned counsel jointly on 17.03.2022 once again on behalf of the Sikkim University. Mr. Saurabh Tamang, learned counsel appears and submits that he would want to retire from the case, as the Sikkim University has engaged Mr. B. C. Tamang, learned counsel.
Mr. B. C. Tamang, learned counsel submits that he has filed his Vakalatnama in the registry which is not yet on record. Mr. Saurav Singh, learned counsel and Mr. Tenzing Thinlay Lepcha, learned counsel appears and submit that they would desire to withdraw the Vakalatnama in view of the fact that Mr. B. C. Tamang, learned counsel has now been engaged. They jointly submit that Mr. Johnson Subba, learned counsel who is not present today before this court has also instructed them to mention that he too desires to withdraw the Vakalatnama. The learned counsel who opts to retire from the case may file no objection of the Sikkim University within a period of one week hence.
On 14.03.2023 Mr. Dipanshu Sehrawat, learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that he desires to file rejoinder and two weeks time was granted for the said purpose. Today Mr. Vikash Kataria, learned counsel appearing in proxy for the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that she is taken ill and for that reason further time is required to file rejoinder. Two weeks time as prayed for is granted to the petitioner to file rejoinder.
List on 03.05.2023.