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
15 paragraphs · 289 wordsHeard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 in B.P. No. 456 of 2021 in respect of M.A. No. 359 of 2021.
Through this application respondent no. 2 has prayed for its deletion from the array of respondents on the ground that it is neither a necessary nor a
proper party in view of nature of dispute between the petitioner and respondent no. 1. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon
various orders of this Tribunal passed in similar circumstances allowing the prayer for deletion by respondent no. 2, a rival MSO of the petitioner.Â
One such order is dated 9.11.2021 passed in M.A. 76 of 20221 arising out of B.P. No. 107 of 2021. Considering the facts and the aforesaid
submissions which are similar to those considered in the earlier orders, the prayer for deletion is allowed. The M.A. is accordingly allowed and
disposed of.
Respondent no. 1 in B.P. No. 448 of 2021 was served with notice only through an email. Let fresh notice be issued by speed post as well as
dasti.  Affidavit of service should be filed within four weeks.
Respondent no. 2 of B.P. No. 448 of 2021 and respondent no. 1 of B.P. No. 456 of 2021 was served with notice through various modes between 6th
and 14th June, 2021. They have chosen not to appear in spite of ample opportunity. The prayer for ex-parte hearing qua these respondents is
allowed.
Post B.P. No. 456 of 2021 before the Court of Registrar on 25.2.2022 for passing necessary orders and directions to make the petition ready for
hearing.
B.P. No. 448 of 2021 shall be listed under the same head before the Bench on 10.3.2022.