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
9 paragraphs · 212 wordsHeard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent no. 2 on the issue raised by respondent no. 2 in its reply that it is a rival
MSO and in the facts of the case it is neither a necessary party nor a proper party. Learned counsel for respondent no. 2 has placed reliance on
several orders passed by this Tribunal in similar matters wherein respondent no. 2, a rival MSO of the petitioner, has been deleted. It appears from
the submissions that the facts and issues are similar, hence following the earlier order including the order 9.11.2021 passed in M.A. 76 of 2021
arising out of B.P. No. 107 of 2021, the stand of respondent no. 2 is accepted. Respondent no. 2 is deleted from the array of respondents.Â
Revised memo of parties may be filed by the petitioner within three weeks.
From the earlier orders, particularly order dated 3.2.2020, it appears that respondent no. 1 was served with notice on 23.11.2019. In spite of ample
opportunity, he has chosen not to appear. Hence, the prayer for ex-parte hearing qua respondent no. 1 is allowed.
List the matter before the Court of Registrar on 8.3.2022 for passing necessary orders and directions to make the petition ready for early hearing.