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
11 paragraphs · 197 wordsHeard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent no. 2. An order for ex-parte hearing against the non-appearing
respondents has already been passed earlier. Today the, matter has been heard in respect of various M.As. bearing M.A. Nos. 228-233; 269-275 of
2021 in B.P. Nos. 263-268 of 2021; 269, 270, 272-275 of 2021 respectively whereby respondent no. 2 in the concerned petitions has sought its deletion
from the array of respondents.
Learned counsel for respondent no. 2 has placed reliance on various orders allowing similar prayers of respondent no. 2 n similar petitions, including an
order passed on 9.11.2021 in M.A. 76 of 20221 arising out of B.P. No. 107 of 2021. It is clear that in similar situation those orders were passed
allowing similar prayers. Since the submissions and facts are almost similar, the prayer made on behalf of respondent no. 2 seeking deletion is
allowed. The concerned M.As. are allowed and disposed of accordingly. Amended memo of parties should be filed by the petitioner within three
weeks.
Post the matter before the Court of Registrar on 18th February, 2022 for passing necessary orders and directions to make the petitions ready for
hearing.