Delhi High Court
Vodafone Cellular Ltd. vs Union Of India & Ors. on 6 May, 2015
Author: Rajiv Shakdher
$~17
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 1641/2015 & CM No. 2946/2015 (Stay)
VODAFONE CELLULAR LTD. ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr Navin Chawla, Ms Sonali Jaitley, Mr
Rajat Jain & Mr Adhish Srivastava, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr Arun Bhardwaj, CGSC with Mr
Rishi Kapoor & Mr Apurva Varma, Advs. for R-1.
Mr Anand Misra & Mr Shailabh Tiwari, Advs. for
R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
ORDER
% 06.05.2015
1. Pursuant to order dated 23.02.2015 a bank guarantee has been
furnished by the petitioner in favour of Registrar General of this court. The
bank guarantee is in the sum of Rs. 10 lacs. The record shows that
proceedings in that behalf have also been held before the Registrar General
on 30.04.2015 and 05.05.2015. I am informed by learned counsel for the
petitioner that the bank guarantee in issue is valid till 04.03.2016.
2. On notice being issued, Mr Anand Misra has entered appearance on
behalf of respondent no.2. Respondent no.2 is the contesting party. The
impugned order enures in its favour. Respondent no.1 is represented by Mr
Arun Bhardwaj.
3. While pleadings are complete, it is also evident that remedy of appeal
is available to the petitioner before the Cyber Appellate Tribunal (in short
the Tribunal). The reason that the petitioner had approached this court was
that the Chairperson of the Tribunal is not in position. The situation
continues to remain same. Learned counsel for respondent no.1 says that
there is a likelihood of a Chairperson being appointed in the near future. I
am also informed by learned counsel for the petitioner that an appeal has
been lodged with the Tribunal.
4. In these circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with the
following directions:
(i) The appeal filed by the petitioner with the Tribunal will be
prosecuted. The bank guarantee furnished in favour of the Registrar General
of this court, will abide by the orders of the Tribunal.
(ii) Respondent no.2, will have the liberty to seek release of the money
reflected in the bank guarantee, by moving an appropriate application before
the Tribunal. In case the Tribunal is not made functional within a
reasonable period of time, respondent no.2 will have the liberty to approach
this court to take recourse to bank guarantee which, the petitioner has
furnished.
(iii) In case respondent no.2 either does make an endeavour for release of
the money as reflected by the bank guarantee in issue or is unsuccessful in
such an attempt, petitioner will keep the bank guarantee alive till its appeal
is disposed of by the Tribunal, and for a period of three weeks thereafter.
(iv) Interim order dated 23.02.2015 will continue to operate till the appeal
is disposed of by the Tribunal.
6. With the aforesaid directions the writ petition and the application are
disposed of.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
MAY 06, 2015/kk
