HOLOFLEX LTD Vs. STATE OF MP AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The arguments of respective counsel for the parties were heard on 27.7.2016 and the case was closed for delivery of orders. However, from perusal of the record it transpires that the petitioner has made specific averments against the respondents No.3 and 4. The relevant extract of the averments made against the respondents No.3 and 4 reads as under:-

(2.) By way of an application for taking additional documents on record, namely, I.A.No.5117/2016, which has been taken on record, following averments have been made in paragraph 2 of the aforesaid application:-

(3.) However, during the course of argument, when a query was put to learned senior counsel for the respondent No.3 and learned counsel for the respondent No.4, they apprised us that the respondents No.3 and 4 do not want to file any return. It is trite law that if an allegation of fact is not specifically denied by the other side, the allegation is deemed to be admitted. See (Naseem Bano vs. State of U.P. and others, 1993 Supp4 SCC 46). It is equally well settled that for the inadvertence on the part of the counsel, party should not be made to suffer.