9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 1545X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... kely to set a bad precedent as any litigant may approach this Court through a new set of lawyer for review of the order making a vague statements that he had not instructed to his Advocate(s) to withdraw the appeal. The sanctity of Court’s order is to be preserved. We are not satisfied with the averments made in the review application and those are the very basis of seeking condonation of delay - review application dismissed. - Civil Review No.467 of 2018 In Miscellaneous Appeal No.42 of 2010, Civil Review No. 468 of 2018 - - - Dated:- 30-1-2019 - Mr. Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mrigank Mauli, Advocate, Mrs. Soni Shrivastava, Advocate For the Opposite Party : Mr. Ravi Bhardwaj, Advocate ORAL ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng in the case from February, 2017 and at this stage it was informed that he had communicated vide his letter dated 18.02.2017 to the petitioners company that he had discontinued his practice and his son had joined the Government side in the 3rd week of July, 2016. It is the case of the review petitioners that the copy of letter dated 18.02.2017 was made available to the petitioners only enclosed with the letter dated 20.09.2018. It is stated that there is an error apparent on the face of the record as the presence of Mr. Ajay Rastogi shown in the order dated 16.04.2018 is not correct. We have given an anxious consideration to the submissions of learned counsel representing the petitioners company but were not persuaded to accept the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ind that the order of which the review has been sought was passed in presence of Mr. S.K. Sharan, Advocate, Mr. Ajay Rastogi, Advocate and Ms. Kalpana Rohtagi as also the learned AAG-3. It is not the stand of the petitioners that on 16.04.2018 Mr. Ajay Rastogi was a Government Counsel and/or Mr. S. K. Sharan, Advocate and Ms. Kalpana Rohtagi, the other two learned Advocate confirmed to the petitioner company that they had not appeared on 16.04.2018. (iii) The letter dated September 17, 2018 is though addressed to Mr. L.N. Rastogi, learned Senior Advocate and others but the dispatch shows that it was sent only to learned Senior Advocate. The response of learned Senior Advocate vide his letter dated 20.09.2018 nowhere states that he had in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
