Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited v. Yelchury Ashok Kumar

Before : Anil H. Laddhad, Prothonotary & Senior Master Date : 06th May, 2026 FOR HEARING AND FINAL DISPOSAL :

CHOL/348/2026 in WPL/40506/2022 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Ms. Gayatri Khanvilkar i/b. Vinod Joshi, Advocate for the applicant.

Ms. Aditi jain i/b. Sriram Sridharan, Advocate for respondent no. 1.

Ms. Bushra Moughal i/b. Ashok Shetty, Advocate for respondent no. 2 (Later on present) P.C.:

The present Chamber Order is e-filed by the applicant for setting aside Order dated 04.03.2024, rejecting captioned Petition for non-compliance of office objections under O.S.Rule 986.

Ld. Advocate for the applicant tenders Affidavit of Service, showing service of Chamber Order upon respondents, which is taken on record.

Heard both the sides. Ld. Advocate for the applicant stated that they have already removed office objections. However, neither there is compliance praecipe nor justification placed on record. Looking to the office objections raised and Order passed in the matter, in my view, the Chamber Order can be allowed by saddling cost on the applicant. Hence, in the interest of justice, present Chamber Order is granted as prayed subject to payment of cost of Rs. 5,000/- to be paid to respondent no. 1.

Upon payment of cost, captioned Petition be restored to file, and the petitioner to remove office objections of the Petition and get the same registered/numbered by filing/uploading compliance praecipe within four weeks from the date of payment of cost, failing Petition to stand rejected for non-compliance of O.S.Rule 986.

Date : 06.05.2026 Prothonotary and Senior Master Digitally signed by RAJEEV VIJAY ACHARYA Date:

2026.05.07 16:23:17 +0530 RAJEEV VIJAY ACHARYA