Rajat Wires Pvt. Ltd. v. Narender And ANR.
- 1 -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH 1.
Decided on : 06.02 .2024 Rajat Wire Pvt. Ltd.
. . . Petitioner(s)
Versus
Narender and another . . . Respondent(s) 2.
CWP-9287-2013 (O&M) Rajat Wire Pvt. Ltd.
. . . Petitioner(s)
Versus
Inder Singh and another . . . Respondent(s) 3.
CWP-10083-2013 (O&M) Rajat Wire Pvt. Ltd.
. . . Petitioner(s)
Versus
Anand and another . . . Respondent(s) 4.
CWP-10455-2013 (O&M) Rajat Wire Pvt. Ltd.
. . . Petitioner(s)
Versus
Bachu Singh and another . . . Respondent(s) 5.
CWP-9038-2013 (O&M) Rajat Wire Pvt. Ltd.
. . . Petitioner(s)
Versus
Prem Chander and another . . . Respondent(s) 6.
CWP-21683-2013 (O&M) Rajat Wire Pvt. Ltd.
. . . Petitioner(s)
Versus
Dharmender and another . . . Respondent(s)
- 2 - 7.
CWP-26-2014 (O&M) Rajat Wire Pvt. Ltd.
. . . Petitioner(s)
Versus
Kiran Kumar and another . . . Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH PRESENT: Mr. A.P. Bhandari, Advocate for the petitioner(s).
Mr. Vikas Sonak, Advocate for Mr. Deepak Sonak, Advocate for respondent No.1.
**** SANJAY VASHISTH, J. (Oral) 1.
Controversy involved in all the aforementioned writ petitions is similar, and therefore, these were ordered to be clubbed together with CWP6901-2013, treating the same as lead case, vide separate orders passed in respective writ petitions by the Coordinate Bench(s) on different dates. Accordingly, for the purpose of disposal of these writ petitions, main/common order is being passed in CWP-6901-2013. 2.
Order dated 18.10.2023, says as under:- "Present:
Mr. A.P. Bhandari, Advocate for the petitioner(s) (in all the cases).
Mr. Deepak Sonak, Advocate for respondent No.1.
**** Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) submits that as per his instructions, the petitioner-Company has gone into liquidation, however, he seeks an accommodation to provide the necessary details thereof.
At his request, adjourned to 05.01.2024.
Photocopy of this order be placed on the files of other
- 3 - connected cases."
3.
Again, Mr. A.P. Bhandari, learned counsel for the petitioner(s) (in all the cases), expressed his inability and same is recorded in the order dated 05.01.2024, which says as under:- "Present:
Mr. A.P.Bhandari, Advocate for the petitioner(s) in all the cases.
Mr. Vikas Sonak, Advocate for Mr. Deepak Sonak, Advocate for respondent No. 1. *** Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) states that the factory where the respondent was working, has already been taken over by some financial institution. Thus, he is not in a position to challenge the award at this stage. However, he seeks some time to move an appropriate application after getting certain instructions from the petitioner(s), who filed the writ petition. Adjourned to 01.02.2024.
A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of other connected cases. "
4.
Thus, learned counsel for the petitioner(s) submits that he tried his level best to contact the petitioner(s)/officials (in all the cases), but all in vain, as neither anyone contacted him, nor any response has been received so far. Therefore, again he is not in a position to address submissions in the absence of any instructions. Even, there is no knowledge that who has now taken over the earlier establishment.
5.
After taking note of the aforementioned circumstances and the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner(s), as well as keeping in view the fact that in all the writ petitions, there is no assistance in the absence of instructions, this Court is left with no other option, except to dismiss the same for want of prosecution.
6.
Accordingly, present writ petition(s) stands dismissed for non-
- 4 - prosecution.
However, liberty is granted to the petitioner(s) to move an appropriate application for seeking revival of the writ petition(s), if any, substantial cause of action survives therein for its adjudication by the Court, within a period of 12 weeks from today.
(SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE February 06, 2024 J.Ram Whether speaking/reasoned:
Yes/No Whether Reportable:
Yes/No