9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (2) TMI 62X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e records were not available when the petitioner so visited. The petitioner has been only insisting that the records should have been made available when he chose not to go to the counsel, an aspect dealt with by the single Judge in the order dated 03.10.2012. The petitioner has been unnecessarily obstinate inasmuch as even in the order dated 03.10.2012, it is noticed that the single Judge offered it to the petitioner that another date can be fixed, but the petitioner was not willing to indicate any other date. Despite this, the single Judge has granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the office of ROC so that direction dated 16.08.2012 could be complied with as and when the appellant chooses to go to the office of the ROC. The lit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l) No.439/2012 in effect seeking compliance of the order dated 24.10.2011 and 28.02.2012. The learned single Judge on 13.07.2012 recorded that it appeared from the reading of the contempt petition that the grievance of the petitioner was that there were certain documents which were missing from the file as also that certain other documents were incomplete qua which he had moved an application before the ROC on 16.05.2012 and 17.05.2012. Notice was issued to the ROC returnable on 16.08.2012. On 16.08.2012, the Assistant Registrar, ROC was present. The court recorded that it was even earlier noticed in the order dated 13.07.2012 that the petitioner had not provided the requisite information i.e. the dates on which the documents were filed f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le Judge noticed the directions issued on 16.08.2012 and the averment in the application that the petitioner visited the office of the advocate for the ROC on 28.08.2012. The learned single Judge found this strange as the date and time had been prescribed for such a visit as 23.08.2012 at 4 PM in the chamber of the counsel. The order further records that the learned single Judge once again called upon the petitioner to indicate a date and time convenient to him to inspect the record of the ROC in terms of the order dated 16.08.2012, but the petitioner refused to indicate the same and insisted that the application filed by him must proceed wherein damages had been sought under various heads. The counsel for the ROC stated that they were stil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owever, never visited the office of the standing counsel for Government of Delhi (counsel for ROC) on the said date or time, but went five days later. Obviously the records were not available when the petitioner so visited. The petitioner has been only insisting that the records should have been made available when he chose not to go to the counsel, an aspect dealt with by the learned single Judge in the order dated 03.10.2012. The petitioner has been unnecessarily obstinate inasmuch as even in the order dated 03.10.2012, it is noticed that the learned single Judge offered it to the petitioner that another date can be fixed, but the petitioner was not willing to indicate any other date. Despite this, the learned single Judge has granted l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
