JUGANSU SEKHAR PANDA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Swain, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, service has been effected. He prays for interim order on his client being similarly situate with petitioners in W.P.(C) no.36134 of 2021 (Satyabrata Panda v. Union of India) and W.P.(C) no.31220 of 2021 (Deepanjali Samantray v. Union of India). He submits, impugned communication disqualifies his client under sec. 164(2) of Companies Act, 2013 but omits to say date of commencement of disqualification.

(2.) Impugned communication will remain stayed till disposal of the writ petition. The I.A. is disposed of.

(3.) Copy of counter must be filed and served on petitioner by eight weeks from date as prayed for by Mr. Parhi, learned advocate, Assistant Solicitor General appearing on behalf of Union of India. Petitioner will be entitled to use rejoinder on advance copy served.