- (1.) HEARD Sri D.D. Chopra, learned Counsel for the Appellant and Sri J.D. Mistri, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Akarsh Garg on behalf of the Respondent.
(2.) TO substitute in place of Respondent Indo Gulf Fertilizer Limited, the Appellant prays for time to move application for impleadment. However, learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent Sri J.D. Mistri, assisted by Sri Akarsh Garg, submits that he has no objection in case Appellant substitutes Aditya Birla Novo Limited in place of Respondent. Accordingly, the Appellant is permitted to substitute Aditya Birla Novo Limited in place of Respondent forthwith. During the course of hearing, Sri D.D. Chopra submits that keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, one more substantial question of law be framed broadly keeping in view the question of law framed by the Appellant himself at serial No. 1. In response to submissions made by the Appellant's counsel, learned Senior Counsel for Respondents submits that keeping in view the order dated 20.4.2010, no further substantial question of law may be framed by this Court that too, on the basis of pleading of record. He further submits that once the Court applied its mind over the pleading of record and framed only two substantial question of law by order dated 20.4.2011, then it is not open to frame another substantial question of law based on same pleadings since it amounts to review of earlier order passed by this Court and only option for the Appellant is to prefer appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
(3.) IT has further been submitted that in any case, the same substantial question of law, contained in the memo of appeal, which was initially framed by the Appellant in the memo of appeal, cannot be looked into and taken into account while framing another substantial question of law.;