DEEPAK KHOSLA Vs. ANAND MOHAN MISHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present proceedings, which are described as First Appeal against Order (Original Side), i.e., FAO (OS) is in fact a petition moved by the petitioner under Sub-section (2) of Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the ?Code?) where under allegations of perjury are levelled against certain persons arrayed as respondents. These alleged acts of perjury are stated to have been committed by the respondents in the proceedings arising out of OMP No. 660/2009 titled "Montreaux Resorts (P) Ltd. and Anr. v. Sonia Khosla and Anr." which is a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The said OMP has not been decided so far and is still pending before the learned Single Judge of this Court.

(2.) The allegations, inter alia, in nutshell, are that;

(3.) We are not taking note of these allegations in detail. Reason is simple. When the petition came up for preliminary hearing, we had queried the petitioner about the maintainability of this petition before a Division Bench without first approaching the learned Single Judge by filing appropriate application in OMP No. 660/2009, which is still pending. We had also passed an order requesting Mr. Arvind Nigam, Senior Advocate to appear and assist us on this legal issue. The arguments are advanced by the petitioner as well as Mr. Arvind Nigam on this aspect.