Case Details

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Commercial Appeal No.15 of 2019 ...... M/s. Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd. & Ors. --- --- Appellants Versus Bharat Construction Company, Ranchi. -- --- Respondent --- CORAM: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh The Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary --- For the Appellants : Mrs. Jasvindar Mazumdar, Adv. --- 05/30.09.2020 The following surviving defects are to be removed in the instant appeal :- (i) Limitation petition may be filed. (ii) Second set of memo may be filed. (iii) Synopsis with list of dates may be filed. (iv) Vak may be filed by appellant no.2 to 4 or Ld. Adv. may give certificate that Executant of Vak is empowered to file Vak on behalf of all appellants. However, appellant no.4 is not member of same organization as that of appellant no.1 to 3. (v) Father’s name of proprietor of respondent may be mentioned as per decree. Learned counsel for the appellant prays for and is allowed one week’s time after reopening of Dussehra vacation for removal of the defects. (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Shamim/

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Com. Appeal No.15 of 2019 ...... M/s Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd. & Ors. --- --- Appellants Versus Bharat Construction Company, Ranchi. --- --- Respondent --- CORAM: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh The Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary Through Video Conferencing --- For the Appellants : Mr. Vikas Kumar, Adv. For the respondents : Mr. Amit Kr. Das, Adv. --- 06/01.12.2020 Learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Vikas Kumar submits that deficit court fee has been filed today in the drop box. He seeks some more time to remove the defects pointed out by the stamp reporter indicated in the order dated 30th September 2020. Further two weeks’ time, as prayed for, is allowed to remove the defects. (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Shamim/

legal IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Commercial Appeal No. 15 of 2019 M/s Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd. & ors. --- --- Appellants Versus Bharat Construction Company, Ranchi --- --- Respondent ….... CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY Through Video Conferencing For the Appellant : Ms. Madhulika Dasgupta, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate 07/04.01.2021 Learned counsel for the appellants Ms. Madhulika Dasgupta prays for and is allowed three weeks time to remove the following surviving defects: 1. Limitation petition may be filed. 2. Second set of memo may be filed. 3. Synopsis with list of dates may be filed. 4. Vakalatnama may be filed by appellant no.2 to 4 or learned Advocate may give certificate that executant of vakalatnama is empowered to file vakalatnama on behalf of all appellants. However, appellant no. 4 is not member of same organization as that of appellant no. 1 to 3. 8. Partly removed i.e., address of appellant no.4 may be mentioned with P.O., P.S. and District (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) A.Mohanty

legal IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Commercial Appeal No. 15 of 2019 M/s Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd. & ors. --- --- Appellant Versus Bharat Construction Company, Ranchi --- --- Respondent ….... CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY Through Video Conferencing For the Appellant : Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate 08/08.02.2021 Learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Vikas Kumar submits that synopsis has been filed today in order to remove defect no.3. Defect no.5 has also been removed. However, he seeks permission to file an interlocutory application to delete appellant no.4, who is not part of the appellant no.1 –Organization but was a defendant in the Commercial (Money Suit) Case No. 52 of 2008, in order to implead him as respondent/ proforma respondent. He further undertakes to remove the defect no.8. Learned counsel for the appellant undertakes to remove the remaining defect within this weeks. Office to place the file for inspection and removal of defects on requisition being made within the same time. I.A. No. 453 of 2021 was preferred for ignoring the defect no.4. However, it appears that the prayer is misconceived. Therefore the said I.A. is dismissed. Learned counsel for the respondent seeks and is allowed two weeks’ time to file reply to I.A. No. 452 of 2021 seeking condonation of delay of 65 days. (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) A.Mohanty

legal IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Commercial Appeal No. 15 of 2019 M/s Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd. & ors. --- --- Appellant Versus Bharat Construction Company, Ranchi --- --- Respondent ….... CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY Through Video Conferencing For the Appellant : Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate 08/08.02.2021 Learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Vikas Kumar submits that synopsis has been filed today in order to remove defect no.3. Defect no.5 has also been removed. However, he seeks permission to file an interlocutory application to delete appellant no.4, who is not part of the appellant no.1 –Organization but was a defendant in the Commercial (Money Suit) Case No. 52 of 2008, in order to implead him as respondent/ proforma respondent. He further undertakes to remove the defect no.8. Learned counsel for the appellant undertakes to remove the remaining defect within this weeks. Office to place the file for inspection and removal of defects on requisition being made within the same time. I.A. No. 453 of 2021 was preferred for ignoring the defect no.4. However, it appears that the prayer is misconceived. Therefore the said I.A. is dismissed. Learned counsel for the respondent seeks and is allowed two weeks’ time to file reply to I.A. No. 452 of 2021 seeking condonation of delay of 65 days. (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) A.Mohanty