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 · 197 wordsMr. Mayank Kshirsagar, learned counsel who had appeared on behalf of respondent no. 2 in all these three petitions on 29.7.2021 prays to be discharged because he has been given no vakalatnama or instructions so far. The prayer is allowed. Name of Mr. Mayank Kshirsagar should not appear henceforth as counsel for respondent no. 2.
In view of aforesaid act of respondent no. 2, it is deemed that in spite of notice, respondent no. 2 has chosen not to appear. Hence, the petitions would be heard ex-parte qua resondent no. 2.
Respondent No. 1 in B P Nos. 706 and 707 of 2020 is represented by Mr. Malhar D Buch, Advocate and he has already filed reply. Petitioner may file rejoinder to the said reply within three weeks.
Respondent no. 1 of B P No. 708 of 2020 was served with notice on 8.3.2021 but has chosen not to appear in spite of several opportunities. The prayer for ex-parte hearing qua respondent no. 1 of B P No. 708 of 2020 is therefore allowed.
Post the matters before the Court of Registrar on 11.11.2021 for passing necessary orders and directions to make the petitions ready for hearing.