Himachal Futuristic ... vs Uoi
2009 Latest Caselaw 2775 Del

10.
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


+            FAO(OS) 304/2009 & CM Nos. 9890-9891/2009

%                                          Decided on: July 22, 2009


        HIMACHAL FUTURISTIC COMMUNICATION LTD. ..... Appellant
                     Through: Mr. Bishwajit Bhattacharya, Senior
                     Advocate with Mr. Parmanand and Mr.
                     Debasis Mukherjee, Advocates.

                    versus


        UOI                                    ..... Respondent
                         Through: Ms. Monika Garg, Advcocate.


CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKUL MUDGAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NEERAJ KISHAN KAUL

1.      Whether Reporters of the local newspapers may be allowed to
        see the judgment?              No
2.      Whether to be referred to the Reporter or not? No
3.      Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No

                         JUDGMENT (ORAL)

MUKUL MUDGAL, J.

1. Notice.

2. Ms. Garg, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of the

respondent UOI.

3. With the consent of the parties, the appeal is taken up for

hearing.

4. The present appeal has been filed against the order dated 13th

April, 2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in I.A. No. 4753/2009

in O.M.P. No. 127 of 2008. The impugned order reads as follows:-

                   "                 ORDER
                                     13.04.2009
                   %
                   IA No. 4753/2009

This application has been made for early hearing.

The matter has already been listed for arguments and disposal in the category of "finals" at its own turn.

Counsel for the applicant/respondent shows anxiety that the matter involves huge amount of money and has already been heard by another Bench partly but is discharged from being part heard because of urgency.

The case pertains to year 2008. I consider that priority cannot be given to the matter of 2008 over the matters of 1998.

I find no ground for early hearing. The application is hereby dismissed."

5. Mr. Bhattacharya, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf

of the appellant has not assailed the impugned order dated 13th April,

2009 on the ground that the learned Single Judge has dismissed its

application for early hearing but has submitted by reference to prayer

(b) contained in that very application filed by the appellant in his

OMP No. 127 of 2008, which has prayed for deposit of the decreetal

amount in this Court, that the same was not considered by the

learned Single Judge.

6. The impugned order shows that the issue [prayer (b)] has

escaped the attention of the learned Single Judge. We are of the view

that it is open to the appellant to press prayer (b) in OMP No. 127 of

2008 which sought deposit of the decreetal amount in the Court

before the learned Single Judge notwithstanding the dismissal of the

I.A. No. 4753/2009.

7. With the above observation, the appeal stands disposed of. All

the pending applications stand disposed of as well.

MUKUL MUDGAL [JUDGE]

NEERAJ KISHAN KAUL [JUDGE] JULY 22, 2009 sb