Mani Square Ltd.& Anr. vs. Nemai Chandra Kumar (D) Thr. Lrs.& Ors.

SECTION – XVI

LISTED ON : 13.01.2017 COURT NO. : ITEM NO. :

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

REVIEW PETITION(C) NO.1483 OF 2015 IN CIVIL APPEAL(C) NO. 2402 OF 2015 MANI SQUARE LTD. & ANR. ... APPELLANTS VERSUS NEMAI CHANDRA KUMAR & ORS. ... RESPONDENTS

OFFICE REPORT

The Review Petition abovementioned was listed before the Hon'ble Court on 09.03.2016, when the Court was pleased to pass the following Order :

"Mr. Jaideep Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent nos.1 to 6 submitted that this Court should have issued notice prior to listing the matter before this Court. For the said purpose, he has placed reliance on the concurring opinion in P.N. Eswara Iyer and Ors. vs. Registrar, Supreme Court of India, [(1980) 4 SCC 680].

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, we are of the considered opinion that the said objection is misplaced and accordingly stands rejected.

It is submitted by Mr. Sumit Goel, learned counsel appearing for the Mani Square Ltd., the 1 st respondent in Civil Appeal no.8297 of 2014, that the money has not been withdrawn. Be it noted, the name of the respondent is 'Mani Square Ltd.' but by mistake it has been mentioned as 'Manish Goel' vide order dated 11.05.2015. Be that as it may, the money lying in deposit in Court shall not be withdrawn till the review petition is disposed of.

Mr. P. Chidambaram and Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the State and other parties in the civil appeal are necessary parties and, therefore, they may be permitted to implead them as parties to the review petition.

They are permitted to do so subject to payment of cost of Rs.50,000/ which shall be paid to Nemai Chandra Kumar, 1st respondent, in the review petition. The said amount shall be deposited within a week hence.

After the new respondents are added as parties, notice shall be issued to the newly added respondents so that there will be no cavil over the service.

As Mr. Jaideep Gupta, learned senior counsel being assisted by Ms. Ranjeeta Rohatgi, learned counsel, has entered appearance on behalf of respondent nos.1 to 6, no further notice need be issued qua them."

It is submitted that Mr. Gaurav Khanna, Advocate, has on 15.03.2016 deposited the cost and proof of deposit of Rs.50,000/ which was paid directly to Respondent No.1. Accordingly, Respondent Nos.7 to 15 have been impleaded and Notice was issued to Respondent Nos.7 through Mr.Parijat Sinha, Advocate,(as the Advocate had filed Vakalatnama on behalf of Respondent No.7) and 8 to 15 through registered AD post. Mr. Parijat Sinha, Advocate, has not filed counter affidavit on behalf of Respondent No.7 so far. As per postal tracking report, service of notice is complete in respect of Respondent Nos.8 to 15 but no one has entered appearance so far.

It is further submitted that Ms. Ranjeeta Rohatgi, Advocate, has filed vakalatnama on behalf of Respondent Nos.1 to 6. But she has not filed Counter affidavit on their behalf so far.

Service of notice is complete on all the Respondents.

The Review Petition abovementioned is listed before the Hon'ble Court with this office report.

DATED THIS THE 12th DAY OF January, 2017.

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

Copy to: Mr. Gaurav Khanna, Advocate (For Petitioners) Ms. Ranjeeta Rohatgi, Advocate (For R1 to R6) Mr. Parijat Sinha, Advocate (For R7)

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR