Lavasa Corporation Ltd. Authorised Singatory/ Senior Managerlegal Mr. Shyam Kumar Kundukuri vs. Dyaneshwar Vishnu Shedge

ITEM NO.14 REGISTRAR COURT.1 SECTION XVIA

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 M.A. SAYEED

TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL.) NO(s). 1326 OF 2012

LAVASA CORPORATION LTD. Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

-2-

DYANESHWAR VISHNU SHEDGE & ORS. Respondent(s)

(With appln(s) for stay,permission to file additional documents and office report )

Date: 18/04/2013 This Petition was called on for hearing today.

For Petitioner(s)

Ms Megha Mehta Agrawal, Adv. Mr. E.C. Agrawala,Adv.

For Respondent(s)

Mr Mukesh Verma, Adv. Mr. Yash Pal Dhingra,Adv. Ms. Anitha Shenoy ,Adv

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

The ld. Counsel for respondent No.1 to cure the defects in the counter affidavit as pointed out in the office report by 29.4.2013. On perusal of the record it appears that in dasti notice filed on record, respondent has been directed to appear before 29.4.2013 to file his reply. In fact, the matter is listed before this Court today. Registry to clarify on this ambiguity as to how the notice containing the wrong date came to be issued to the concerned respondent as the non-appearance has its own repercussions and consequences to follow. Concerned branch of

Item No.14 registry to be careful while issuing notices to the other side, particularly in mentioning the date of appearance/filing of the replies etc. In the fitness of the things, I am of the opinion that the matter be posted on 29.4.2013.

The ld. Counsel for respondent No.3 has made a submission at Bar that counter affidavit has been filed on 10.4.2013 and copy has been already received by the other side.

hj

the