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 · 201 wordsMr. Rohit Kaul, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that notice has been validly served on both the respondents. Mr. Sharath Sampath who
appears for respondent no. 1, points out that today he is prepared to file a reply on behalf of respondent no. 1 and also a MA in which respondent
no. 1 has made a prayer for dismissal of the petition qua respondent no. 1. In the facts of the case, the MA shall be treated as part of the reply
and not as a separate MA. Such prayer can be made on the basis of facts in the reply itself. As prayed, let the reply and MA be treated asÂ
a reply and taken on record, if filed during the course of the day.
On behalf of respondent no. 2, Mr. Nasir Husain, Advocate wants to appear. The proxy counsel prays for grant of three weeks' time for filing
vakalatnama and also reply. Petitioner may file a rejoinder so as to include the reply to the MA also within three weeks.
Post the matter under the same head on 12.3.2021.
Respondent No. 1 will be at liberty to press its objections to the petition on the next date.