Tata Teleservices Ltd vs. Srm Estates Pvt Ltd

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

• ARB.P. 80/2016

TATA TELESERVICES LTD ..... Petitioner Through Ms. D. Ray Chaudhary and Mr. Azmat Hayat Amanullah, Advocates

versus SRM ESTATES PVT LTD ..... Respondent Through Mr. M. S. Gupta, Advocate

CORAM: SH. RAJESH KUMAR SINGH (DHJS), JOINT REGISTRAR O R D E R % 05.10.2016

Reply not filed. Learned proxy counsel for the respondent submits that learned counsel for respondent is not well and some more time may be given for filing the reply. Notice was issued to the respondent in pursuance of order dated 08.02.2016. Hon'ble Court directed that it be mentioned in the notice that reply should be filed within three weeks from the date of service of the notice. Respondent received the notice on 18.03.2016. Registry did not mention in the notice that reply has to be filed within three weeks of service of the notice. Though respondent was served on 18.03.2016, nobody appeared on behalf of the respondent on the next date i.e. 04.04.2016 which was mentioned in the notice. Learned counsel for respondent appeared on 27.05.2016. It is submitted that he had not received copy of the petition. Learned counsel for respondent was given liberty to collect a copy of the petition from the office of learned counsel for

$~1

petitioner within a week and reply was to be filed before the next date i.e. 28.07.2016. On 28.07.2016, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that respondent did not collect copy of the petition and copy was supplied in the court. Respondent was directed to file the reply within four weeks, but reply has not been filed. The above mentioned facts clearly show that non filing of reply is deliberate and the intention is to delay the matter. Right of respondent to file reply is closed.

Matter be listed before Hon'ble Court on 8th November, 2016 for direction.

RAJESH KUMAR SINGH (DHJS) JOINT REGISTRAR

OCTOBER 05, 2016 ms