COMMISSIONER (BENAMI PROHIBITION) Vs. PALLAVI MISHRA WIFE OF SH
LAWS(RAJ)-2019-10-56
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (AT: JAIPUR)
Decided on October 15,2019

Commissioner (Benami Prohibition) Appellant
VERSUS
Pallavi Mishra Wife Of Sh Respondents

JUDGEMENT

NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA,J. - (1.) learned counsel, submits that he would represent respondent Gulab Singh @ Ramu Ram @ Ramu in Special Appeals (Writ) no.1331/2019, 1336/2019, 1339/2019, 1353/2019, 1359/2019 and 1382/2019. Learned counsel for appellant has already supplied him copy of memo of respective appeals. Office to show his name in the cause-list. Mr. Javed Khan, learned counsel, submits that he would represent respondents in Special Appeals (Writ) no.1335/2019, 1350/2019, 1351/2019, 1352/2019 and 1392/2019. Learned counsel for appellant has already supplied him copy of memo of respective appeals. Mr. M.M. Ranjan, learned senior counsel, submits that copies of memo of appeals have been supplied to him as per direction of this Court in Special Appeals (Writ) No.1228/2019, 1324/2019, 1340/2019, 1356/2019, 1358/2019, 1362/2019, 1363/2019, 1364/2019, 1365/2019, 1366/2019, 1367/2019, 1369/2019, 1370/2019, 1373/2019, 1374/2019, 1375/2019, 1376/2019, 1377/2019, 1379/2019, 1384/2019, 1385/2019, 1404/2019 and 1425/2019. He appeared for the respondents before the Single Bench but he submits that he shall seek instructions from them to appear in these matters. Office to show name of Mr. Rajat Ranjan, learned counsel, in the cause list for respondents in Special Appeal (Writ) No.1358/2019 and 1377/2019. Mr. Pradeep Choudhary, learned counsel, submits that he would represent respondent no.1 in Special Appeals (Writ) no.1342/2019, 1368/2019 and 1378/2019. Service of respondent no.2 in these matters is dispensed with as it is a proforma respondent. He further submits that he would represent respondent no.2 in Special Appeals (Writ) No.1330/2019 and 1357/2019 and would seek instructions for respondents no.1 and 3 therein. Learned counsel for appellant has already supplied him copy of memo of respective appeals. Mr. Bharat Vyas, learned counsel, submits that he would represent respondent in Special Appeals (Writ) no.1520/2019 and 1521/2019 Learned counsel for appellant has already supplied him copy of memo of respective appeals. Office to show his name in the cause-list as counsel for respondents in these appeals.
(2.) In Special Appeal (Writ) No.1392/2019 it is submitted that name of Mr. Bharat Vyas, learned counsel, has wrongly been shown in the cause-list, whereas name of Mr. Javed Khan is the counsel for respondents therein. Office to show name of Mr. Javed Khan, learned counsel, in the cause-list for respondents, instead of Mr. Bharat Vyas. The respondents in all the matters are duly represented by their respective counsels. Service is thus complete.
(3.) The appeals were heard at some length, however, due to paucity of time, arguments remained inconclusive. Considering however that the arguments on the applications for appropriate interim order would suffice hearing of the main appeals on merits, we deem it appropriate to hear the appeals for final disposal at admission stage.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.