Sonia Khosla vs Vikram Bakshi & Ors. on 8 March 2021

ORDER

(Virtual Mode) 08.03.2021 Heard Learned Counsel for the Applicant. He states that this Application is filed to reiterate directions given earlier and directions to enforce directions already passed. The purpose of the Application is as specified in Paragraph 7 of the Application, which reads as under: “7. That the purpose of this Application is only to seek specific directions from this Hon’ble Appellate Tribunal to prevent future appeals, by seeking a direction to the effect that all the directions passed by this Hon’ble Tribunal in the present Appeal in relation to C.P. No. 114 of 2007 would apply with equal vigour to CP No. 54 of 2021 file in lieu of CP No. 114 of 2007, such as, but not restricted to:

a) That no application under Section 8 shall be entertained.

b) That no frivolous application shall be entertained from either side.

2

Company Appeal (AT) 36, 43-47 of 2016 I.A. No. 444 of 2021

c) That the Respondent, having forfeited his right to file any documents in support of his position, shall not be allowed to do so.

d) That the CP shall be heard on day-to-day basis.

e) That the adjudication of the CP shall be completed within 3 months.”

2. Learned Counsel for the Applicant is referring to the orders passed to submit that as to why this Application should be entertained. However, we have gone through the Application and the object of the Application is clear from Paragraph 7 as reproduced above. We are of the view that such orders as are being sought for future and orders in anticipation just to enforce directions already passed, is not called for.

There is no substance in the Application. The Application is dismissed.

[Justice A.I.S. Cheema] Member (Judicial)

[Dr. Alok Srivastava] Member (Technical)

Basant B./md