Indian Institute Of Technology vs. R. Venkatramani& Ors.

Court:Supreme Court of India
Judge:Hon'ble Hima Kohli
Case Status:Disposed
Order Date:22 Feb 2012
CNR:SCIN010200972011

AI Summary

Get an AI-powered analysis of this court order

Original Order Copy

Get a certified copy of this order

Download True Copy

Order Text

ÚITEM NO.23 REGISTRAR COURT.1 SECTION XV

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

BEFORE THE REGISTRAR S.G. SHAH

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).21937/2011

INDIAN INST.OF TECHNOLOGY, MADRAS Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

R.VENKATRAMANI & ORS. Respondent(s) (With prayer for interim relief)

Date: 22/02/2012 This Petition was called on for hearing today.

For Petitioner(s)

Mr. Shantanu Singh, Adv. Mr. Nikilesh Ramachandran,Adv.

For Respondent(s)

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

The Hon'ble Court has ordered to issue notice on 19.8.2011. Therefore, petitioner is supposed to pay process fee with additional copies of pleadings on or before 19.9.2011 for issuance of notice upon the respondents.

Instead of paying full process fee with full set of pleadings for all 175 respondents on or before 19.9.2011, it seems that the petitioner has paid process fee only for 66 persons i.e., Rs.660/- and that too only on 12.10.2011. Item No.23 -2-

Registry has to explain in writing that what steps Registry has taken after 19.9.2011 till date for not listing this matter before any Competent Authority and, particularly, before the Hon'ble Judge in Chambers for non-prosecution, in view of non-payment of process fee in time. Today, the office report says that there are 175 respondents; whereas the petitioner has paid process fee for 66 respondents only. Learned counsel for the petitioner is pressing that they have paid full process fee.

In any case, the fact remains that the petitioner has not paid full process fee for all the respondents since 19.8.2011. For payment of depositing process fee with proper number of copies for serving notice upon the respondents, petitioner wants four weeks' time. Considering the above fact and more particularly, the date of order to issue notice being 19.8.2011, no further time can be granted after five months. The matter is required to be listed before the Hon'ble Judge in Chambers for non-prosecution in view of non-action on behalf of the petitioner for five months.

However, in the interest of justice, as last chance, petitioner is permitted to pay process fee with full set of pleadings on or before 1.3.2012. Item No.23 -3-

If requisite process fee and pleadings are not filed before 1.3.2012, list before the Hon'ble Judge in Chambers for non-prosecution.

(S.G. SHAH) REGISTRAR

rd

Share This Order

Case History of Orders

Order(14) - 9 Aug 2023

ROP - of Main Case

Click to view

Order(13) - 3 Aug 2023

ROP - of Main Case

Click to view

Order(10) - 20 Jul 2016

ROP - of Main Case

Click to view

Order(11) - 20 Jul 2016

Office Report - of Main Case

Click to view

Order(12) - 20 Jul 2016

ROP - of Main Case

Click to view

Order(8) - 8 Jan 2015

ROP - of Main Case

Click to view

Order(9) - 8 Jan 2015

ROP - of Main Case

Click to view

Order(7) - 6 May 2014

ROP - of Main Case

Click to view

Order(6) - 18 Nov 2013

ROP - of Main Case

Click to view

Order(5) - 12 Apr 2013

ROP - of Main Case

Click to view

Order(4) - 5 Mar 2013

ROP - of Main Case

Click to view

Order(3) - 21 Aug 2012

ROP - of Main Case

Click to view

Order(2) - 22 Feb 2012

ROP - of Main Case

Viewing

Order(1) - 19 Aug 2011

ROP - of Main Case

Click to view