Dileep Kumar Pandey vs. Union Of India
AI Summary
This Supreme Court order from March 2012 outlines critical procedural steps for a Special Leave Petition concerning a service matter. It details notice acceptance, directions for filing affidavits, and instructions for serving unserved respondents, highlighting the court's emphasis on timely compliance to avoid delays in litigation and ensure proper prosecution of the case.
Case Identifiers
Petitioner's Counsel
Respondent's Counsel
Advocates on Record
eCourtsIndia AITM
Brief Facts Summary
Two Special Leave Petitions (Civil), SLP(C) No. 7641/2011 and SLP(C) No. 35751/2011, were listed before the Registrar Court. SLP(C) No. 7641/2011 was deleted. In SLP(C) No. 35751/2011, counsel for respondent Nos. 2, 3, and 5 accepted notice and sought time to file necessary documents. The court directed the petitioner to provide copies of pleadings and ordered fresh dasti service on unserved respondent Nos. 4 and 6, specifying procedures for service and setting deadlines for compliance and the next hearing.
Timeline of Events
SLP(C) No. 7641/2011 and SLP(C) No. 35751/2011 filed.
Petitions called on for hearing before Registrar Court.
SLP(C) No. 7641/2011 Deleted.
Ld. Advocate Mr Anupam Raina accepts notice for respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 5 in SLP(C) No. 35751/2011.
Court grants time to file vakalatnama and counter affidavit for served respondents.
Petitioner directed to provide copies of pleadings against proper acknowledgment.
Court directs fresh dasti service on unserved respondent Nos. 4 and 6.
Deadline for paying process fee and spare copies for fresh notices.
Next listing date if notices are issued.
Key Factual Findings
SLP(C) No. 7641/2011 is to be deleted from the record.
Source: Current Court Finding
Notice has been accepted by counsel for respondent Nos. 2, 3, and 5 in SLP(C) No. 35751/2011.
Source: Current Court Finding
Respondent Nos. 4 and 6 in SLP(C) No. 35751/2011 remain unserved.
Source: Current Court Finding
Primary Legal Issues
Secondary Legal Issues
Petitioner's Arguments
The order primarily deals with procedural aspects, and specific arguments of the petitioner are not detailed. However, their presence implies an active prosecution of their Special Leave Petition.
Respondent's Arguments
The order notes that counsel for respondent Nos. 2, 3, and 5 accepted notice and sought time to file a vakalatnama and counter affidavit, indicating their intention to appear and present their defense.
Court's Reasoning
The Registrar's decision focuses on advancing the case by ensuring all parties are on record and have an opportunity to present their side. The court emphasized expeditious service of notice, allowing dasti service and setting clear deadlines, to prevent undue delay and potential non-prosecution. The direction for the petitioner to provide copies of pleadings against proper acknowledgment is to streamline the process and avoid re-issuance of notices.
- Emphasis on Procedural Efficiency
- Ensuring Natural Justice (opportunity to be heard)
Specific Directions
- 1.SLP(C) NO.7641/2011 Deleted.
- 2.Mr Anupam Raina accepts notice for respondent Nos. 2,3 and 5 and seeks time to file vakalatnama and counter affidavit.
- 3.Petitioner has to provide copies of pleadings against proper acknowledgment which is to be filed on record to avoid issuance of further notices.
- 4.Issue fresh notice with dasti service on unserved respondent nos. 4 and 6.
- 5.Dasti service permitted to be served through the nearest Civil Court/Trial Court where private parties are concerned and through standing counsel where State authorities are concerned.
- 6.Process fee and spare copies to be paid before 26.3.2012, else list before the Hon'ble Judge in Chamber for non-prosecution.
- 7.If notices are issued, list again on 2.5.2012.
- 8.Served respondents may file counter affidavit till then.
Precedential Assessment
Non-Binding (Procedural)
This is a procedural order by the Registrar, primarily dealing with case management and ensuring due process, rather than substantive legal interpretation or establishing a new legal principle. It does not set a binding precedent.
Tips for Legal Practice
Legal Tags
Disclaimer: eCourtsIndia (ECI) is not a lawyer and this analysis is generated by ECI AI, it might make mistakes. This is not a legal advice. Please consult with a qualified legal professional for matters requiring legal expertise.
Order Text
\234ITEM NO.68 REGISTRAR COURT.1 SECTION XI
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).7641/2011 DILEEP KUMAR PANDEY Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s) (With office report ) WITH SLP(C) NO. 35751 of 2011 (With office report) Date: 16/03/2012 This Petition was called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s) Mr Saurabh Gupta, ADv. Mr. Anil Kumar Tandale,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr Anupam Raina, Adv. Mrs.Rekha Palli,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R SLP(C) NO.7641/2011 Deleted. SLP(C) NO. 35751/2011 The ld. Advocate, Mr Anupam Raina appearing on behalf of Mrs Rekha Palli, Advocate-on-record accepts notice for respondent Nos. 2,3 and 5 and seeks time to file vakalatnama and counter affidavit. Petitioner has to provide copies of pleadings against proper acknowledgment which is to be filed on record to avoid issuance of further notices. -2- Item No.68 Issue fresh notice with dasti service on unserved respondent nos. 4 and 6, which is permitted to be served
through the nearest Civil Court/Trial Court where private
parties are concerned and through standing counsel where State
authorities are concerned, if process fee and spare copies are paid before 26.3.2012, else list before the Hon'ble Judge in Chamber for non-prosecution. If notices are issued, list again on 2.5.2012. Served respondents may file counter affidavit till
then.
(S.G.SHAH) REGISTRAR
hj
Original Order Copy
Get a certified copy of this order