Saurashtra Cement Ltd. (Formerly Known As M/S Saurashtra Cement And Chemical Industries Ltd. ) vs. The Director General (Investigation And Registration)

˜ITEM NO.86 REGISTRAR COURT.1 SECTION XVII

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 686 OF 2008

BEFORE THE REGISTRAR S.G. SHAH

M/S ACC LTD. Appellant (s)

VERSUS

D.G. (I&R) NEW DELHI & ORS. Respondent(s) (With appln(s) for amendment of cause title) with CA Nos.1336,876,899,953,1348,956,957,962,970,975,1003,1004,1007, 1335,1055,1084,1092,1261,1262,1294.1306,1443,2933,3568,2467,2792, 2793,2794,2802,3612,3449 and 4898 of 2008 (with office report)

Date: 18/08/2010 This Appeal was called on for hearing today.

For Appellant(s)

Mr. S.A. Gupta, Adv. Mr. R.K. Gupta, Adv. Mr. U.A. Rana, Adv. Ms. Mrinal Majumdar, Adv. M/S Gagrat & Co.,Adv. Ms. Neha Aggarwal, Adv. Mr. E.C. Agrawala, Adv. Ms. S.N. Purohit, Adv. Mr. Monark Gehlot, Adv. M/S Suresh A. Shroff & Co. Mr. Pramod B. Agarwala, Adv. Mr. Sudhir Kumar Gupta, Adv. Mr. O.P. Gaggar, Adv. Mr. Yash Pal Dhingra, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Hari Shankar K., Adv. Mr. Rajiv Kumar Dubey, Adv. Mr. Rajan Narain, Adv. Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, Adv. Mr. Pawan Upadhyay, Adv. Mr. Param Mishra, Adv, Ms. Sharmila Upadhyay, adv. Item No.86 -2-

Mr. Abhijeet Swaroop, Adv. Mr. Kumar Miihir, Adv. M/S. Khaitan & Co.

For Respondent(s)

Mr. Prem Prakash,Adv. Ms. G. Indira, Adv. Mr. B. Krishna Prasad ,Adv Ms. Vedanta Varuna, Adv. Mrs Manik Karanjawala ,Adv Mr. Pramod B. Agarwala ,Adv Mr. Gunwant Dara, Adv. Mr. B. Krishna Prasad, Adv. M/S Gagrat & Co., Adv. Mr. Pramod B. Agarwala, Adv. Ms. Sushma Suri, Adv.

Mr. Vishwajit Singh, Adv.

UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

As per office report, at least one or more respondents are unserved in most of the appeals.

The learned counsel for the appellants in CA No.686/2008 confirms that except respondent No.1, rest of the respondents are proforma respondents and they would not seek any judicial order against them.

On verification, it is found that the appellants have disclosed respondent Nos.2 to 45 as proforma respondents in the cause title of the SLP. Now the learned counsel for the appellants confirms that they do not want to serve remaining unserved respondents, being proforma respondents. Item No.86 -3-

Files for other appeals are not received by the court. There must be similar position in the remaining appeals.

Office as well as learned counsel for the concerned appellants in connected appeals have to verify such aspect before 31.8.2010.

(S.G. SHAH) Registrar

rd