Counsel Appearance Granted: Provisional Order Dissolved, Affidavit Required Within Ten Days for Further Proceedings HC allowed counsel's appearance application and directed filing of an affidavit within ten days. The provisional attachment order was dissolved after ...
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
Counsel Appearance Granted: Provisional Order Dissolved, Affidavit Required Within Ten Days for Further Proceedings
HC allowed counsel's appearance application and directed filing of an affidavit within ten days. The provisional attachment order was dissolved after confirmation of non-extension. The court instructed petitioner's counsel to file an affidavit regarding bar submissions and listed the matter for further hearing, requiring Mr. Surat Singh's presence and respondent's counsel to produce relevant documents.
Issues: 1. Application for recording appearance of counsel on a specific date. 2. Compliance of an order dated 15.07.2022 regarding a provisional attachment order. 3. Affidavit filed concerning submissions made by counsel.
Analysis: 1. The first issue pertains to an application filed by the petitioner for recording the appearance of their counsel on 15.07.2022. The petitioner's counsel, Mr. Harsh Sethi, confirmed his presence on the said date, although he did not file an affidavit initially. The respondent's counsel, Mr. Aditya Singla, affirmed Mr. Sethi's presence, leading to the court allowing the application and directing Mr. Sethi to file an affidavit within ten days for the record.
2. The second issue involves an application seeking compliance with an order dated 15.07.2022 related to a provisional attachment order. The court had previously recorded the petitioner's grievance regarding the attachment order losing its efficacy and directed the matter to be listed on 15.07.2022. On that date, it was confirmed that the attachment order had not been extended, leading to its dissolution. The writ petition was disposed of based on this information. Subsequently, a statement by Mr. Surat Singh revealed details suggesting he was not fully aware of the petition filed in his name, indicating he was a name-lender receiving payment for this service. The court directed the petitioner's counsel to file an affidavit regarding the statements made at the bar.
3. The final issue revolves around the affidavit that the petitioner's counsel, Mr. Harsh Sethi, is required to file concerning the submissions made by him during the proceedings. This affidavit needs to be submitted within one week. Additionally, documents presented by the respondent's counsel, including a communication referring to a summons and an ongoing inquiry, were discussed. The matter was listed for the next hearing, with Mr. Surat Singh instructed to be present, and the respondent's counsel directed to bring the documents to court on the next date.
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 
TaxTMI 
