Anjana Devi Mittal vs Oil And Natural Gas Corporation ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 2180 Del

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                             Date of order: May 02, 2017

+      W.P.(C) 2979/2017

       ANJANA DEVI MITTAL                              ..... Petitioner
                    Through :          Ms. Meena Chaudhary Sharma,
                                       Advocate.

                          Versus

       OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD.
                                                 ..... Respondent
                    Through : Mr. Avinash Singh, Advocate.

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

                       ORDER

% (ORAL)

Order of 5th June, 2014 permits only Question no. 3 to be asked in cross examination while disallowing Question nos. 1 and 2 in 'Annexure- C' to this petition.

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the first two questions in 'Annexure - C' are relevant and so the petitioner ought to be permitted to cross-examine respondents' material witness-Mr. Vikram Malhotra, Deputy General Manager (HR) Incharge (MW-3).

The opposition to this petition by respondent's counsel is on the ground that petitioner has already cross-examined this witness (MW-3) at length and has asked about the appointing authority of petitioner and this

witness (MW-3) has already answered in cross examination that he is not aware as to whether respondent/ONGC has any permanent employee or not and so, this petition deserves dismissal.

Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned order and the record, I find that first two questions as in 'Annexure-C' are essential for the just decision of this case and hence the impugned order dated 5 th June, 2014 is set aside with direction to permit petitioner to ask Question Nos. 1 and 2 as in 'Annexure-C' to respondent's witness MW-3.

Let the records be remitted back through a Special Messenger. The parties shall appear before the Tribunal on the date fixed i.e. tomorrow for fixing a date for limited cross examination of MW-3. It is made clear that the reopening of evidence of MW-3 shall be confined only to Question Nos. 1 and 2 as in 'Annexure-C'.

With the aforesaid directions, this petition is disposed of.

A copy of this order be given dasti to parties.

(SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE MAY 02, 2017 j