KIRAN GIRHOTRA Vs. SUNIL GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These applications have been filed seeking review of the order dated 31.8.2006 and for condonation of delay in filing the review petition.

(2.) The substratum of the case of the respondent is that the respondents were not served and a Counsel appeared on their behalf without any authority and argued the matter resulting in the disposal of the petition on 31.8.2006.

(3.) The respondents, in my considered view, are trying to act clever by half by deliberately wording the application in a manner as if to suggest that the Counsel did not have anything to do with the respondents. However, on a careful perusal of the application, it emerges that the Counsel was appearing for the respondents in different proceedings. It has to be noticed that a notice was issued in the present proceedings and the Trial Court proceedings have been pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioners which record that the present case is listed on 31.8.2006. Thus obviously on the basis of an information received before the Trial Court, the Counsel appeared in this Court.