Justice Karol expedited the hearing of an appeal against a company, directing the Tribunal to decide by June 30, 2015. The judge increased petitioner's costs from Rs. 2000 to Rs. 10,000 due to respondent's repeated adjournments.
Appellant awarded costs of Rs. 10,000; appeal disposed of.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA
CMPMO No.203 of 2014
Date of Decision: 07.10.2014
Rakesh Kumar & others ………Appellants.
Versus
Managing Director, M/s Su-kam Power Systems Limited.
…..Respondent.
Coram:
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 No.
For the Appellant: Ms. Nishi Goel, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Rahul Mahajan, Advocate, for the respondent.
Sanjay Karol, J (oral)
With the consent of parties, following order is
passed:-
1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2
10,000/- and not 2000/- as awarded by the Tribunal, in terms of impugned order dated 04.06.2014, passed in Reference No.75/2009, titled as Sh.Rakesh Kumar & others Versus The Managing Director, M/S Su-Kam Power System Limited.With the aforesaid observations, present
petition stands disposed of, so also, pending application(s), if any.
Copy dasti.
(Sanjay Karol), October 7, 2014 Judge. (Purohit)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to enhanced costs given the respondent's repeated conduct of taking adjournments?
How should the Tribunal handle witness production and examination opportunities to expedite the hearing?
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Rakesh Kumar & others
Managing Director, M/s Su-kam Power Systems Limited
Sanjay Karol
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court