Union Of India vs Bharat Broadcasting Network Ltd

Case taken up. Learned Counsel for DH as well as JD are present.  No compliance by JD is there, rather a statement made by Counsel on Previous date with regard to deposit of two installments, is being said to be incorrect, because of the fact that only one installment was paid, and a wrong statement was made before this Tribunal.

Learned Counsel for DH requested for time for filing appropriate application for this perjury. JD was directed to make compliance or to be present in person. This also got not complied with. A request is for issuing a non Bailable Warrant of Arrest against JD Director, for ensuring presence.

Appropriate application, along with appropriate steps, is to be taken by Decree Holder. Whereas, no such application is there. Though,  Counsel for JD is requesting for time for making compliance under all bonafide. But apparently it is not seem to be bonafide. However, application, if any, along with proper steps for issuing Warrant of Arrest or detention, be taken and filed by Decree Holder, within four weeks.

List the matter on 04.07.2024 “for further hearing”.

However, decree may be complied with, in between, or Director JD may be present in person on above date, for avoiding any issuance of Warrant.