Sai Akshay Internet Services P. Ltd vs Union Of India

On 2.12.2021, this Tribunal noted that nobody had appeared for the petitioner and therefore, a warning was recorded that the petition may be disposed

of for non prosecution. Infact, petitioner's earlier counsels Mr. Ankur Das or Mr. Himanshu Dhawan had not appeared on the earlier two dates

as well. An MA filed on behalf of the petitoner for continuation of interim relief required reply for which time was granted till 3.12.2021. The Order

was communicated to the petitioner.

On the next date, i.e. 19.1.2022, Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate appeared for the petitioner and informed that he had filed vakalatnama a day earlier.Â

Today he has not appeared and the record discloses that he has filed only electronic version of vakalatnama which does not have no objection from

the earlier counsels.

In that situation, the vakalatnama may have to be ignored unless remedial action is taken within a short time. For that purpose, two weeks' time is

granted to the petitioner. Let a copy of this order be sent to the known address of the petitioner.

Let the name of earlier counsels Mr. Himanshu Dhawan and Mr. Ankur Das appear for the petitioner in the cause list alongwith name of Mr. Amit

Kumar, Advocate.

Post the matter under the same head on 17.2.2022.

A reply to the M.A no. 78 of 2021 has been filed on behalf of the respondent on 14.12.2021 although it is beyond time granted earlier, it is in the

interest of justice that it is taken on record. It will be open for the petitioner, if so inclined, to file a rejoinder to the said reply by the next date. The

M.A. shall also be considered on the next date.