In response to the earlier orders, a report prepared by GITCO came to be filed by the OL, which was taken on record. The copies of the report were served on the other contesting parties including Mr. Mardia, who appears as party-in-person.
2. Subsequently, Mr. Mardia, the applicant, party-in-person, filed his objections dated 10.12.2011 and in response, the OL filed the report dated 21.12.2011.
3. Today, during the hearing, Mr. Mardia has submitted his rejoinder in response to the OL's report dated 21.12.2011 (however, as explained by Mr. Mardia, inadvertently, the date is mentioned as 22.12.2011 instead 21.12.2011). The copies of the said rejoinder has been served, today, by Mr. Mardia to Ms. Yajnik, learned counsel for the OL, and the other advocates appearing for the other contesting parties.
4. In view of the issue raised by Mr. Mardia during the hearing on 22.12.2011 in light of the provisions contained under Rule 307 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, today, Ms. Yajnik, learned counsel has appeared for the OL and Mr. Desai, who was appearing in the matter, has expressed that unless the issue is cleared and appropriate permission/direction is granted, he would desist from appearing in the matter on behalf of the OL. Ms. Yajnik, learned counsel for the OL has, on receipt of the rejoinder and in view of the submission by Mr. Desai, learned advocate, requested for some time to go through the rejoinder filed by Mr. Mardia and also to prepare the matter on behalf of the OL.
5. Mr.
Pahwa, learned advocate, has submitted that despite the directions contained in para-4 of the order dated 22.12.2011, necessary details giving bifurcation related to the period during which the different security agencies were engaged have yet not been placed on record.
6. Ms.
Yajnik, learned counsel for the OL, has submitted that on or before the next date of hearing, necessary details may be filed.
7. The OL has also not filed his response in connection with the issue raised by Mr. Mardia in light of Rule 307 of the Rules of 1959. The OL shall have to explain as to whether necessary permission to engage advocate, other than the advocates on the settled panel, has been obtained by the OL in present case or not. The said explanation also shall be submitted by the OL on or before the next date of hearing.
S.O.
to 30.01.2012.
(K.M.Thaker, J.) kdc Top