^ z. ^^ OF .^ ^^> .^^^ ^•^^y W,P.NoL'?-;^ / 2003 7s Mahavir Coai Corporation, a proprietare Concem having. its pl^ce of busiiiess at Plot No.7, Nawab Apartments, Nawab Layout, Tiiak Nagar-440 010, Presootly residmg at Vinobha Nagar, Bil%spur-(C,G.5 ^^ .<.-'• Ver^ii^ Kes&Qiideiit^ South Eastera Coalfi^lds Ltd., Through ite M^BagingDirector, Caicutta 2. Tlie Geiieral Manager ^.S&M) ^ECL, Seepat Road, Bilaspu^fC.G.j OF THE sn^Twf^w ^rw w^w^ NIWIT WNI^» "3^f '^T^F^RT, '^ftWT^, f®t<ni<rl^< iAJ:.f..^.o.:..IZ^i^..i.., ii Wt 200 ^TI^T tra^T ('j?^^) I^ITW^ft^^I^F 21.6.2003 Shri P. Diwakar, leame|l counsel for tbe petitioner. Shri Vinay Harit, leam^d counsel for the respondents. Hcard. Respondents have filejl return and have also ffled docuDients to show fhat 22.11.2002 wherein they They had refcrred the hid d^viation explanatloh why action invjskin; should not be initiated. It is notice dated 22.11.2002 was ^ (annexulre Gt notice on 19.3.2003 (anncxu The petitloner ffled a repn 7.4.2003. The respondents I: filed document (Annexiire R/. ^OQ. eM^t<n<?iff ^R^tf ^f ft^ <r»i^$i< ^?^fi?H^?it?T aarUer notice was issued on sought for the explanation. aad sought for the v|3king clause 2.2.1 agreement Ffointed out that the reply to this ^ubmitted on 16.12.2002, which IThereafter the petitioner did not is at page 199 ofthe petition. hcar anything from thc rcspoijidcnts and hc was scrvcd with a P/3 p. 193 of the petition). |sentation (Annexure P/4) on |ave submitted that they have ^/reply dated 3.6.2003), which ^WHStT W*<8^ •g-sr -^nzST^Tq^ ^x{t<:l4Ko, [®l^l<rl^< !/).?'. Mo . /7^s-/^^^ ^..................................................^200 ^n^fl^v (<j°iisq^€r) ^n^T'^ETl^lW S "'WT ^I^T ^RN? ^ll^fertNW^-^^S <^lt$8< i&^tRm^lt^ GRPkj- is said to have been forwafded and the same has been received vide Annexure-R/5 <{: been flled. 'n 7/6/2003. The copies have Leamed counsel for 1jhe petiUoner sybmitted that other persons by the Westem lcivU suit in the Coiirt ofVIIIth simUar notices were served oit Coal Field and they have fUed| Joint Civil Judge, Junior Divis|on been passed on 12.6.2003^ L, Nagpur where an order has there the counsel for the respondents had agreed to ejxtend the period of notice till 1.7.2003. Leamed counselsu^mits ttiat he does not possess but havilig the coinraunication from. the the certtfied copy ofit counseL He should file theaf< resaid document. Under the circumstan<l:es, learned counsel for the petitloner wants to wiftidraw fhe remedy imder the ordinar^ t}iis petiUon with liberty to avaU law. ,50,000. sn^r ^FT'R^Nr WT^H^T^^N? •^ttr *n<R'ir w^i^ '3^'^TRTq^ ^xl1<H4l<5, [®1^1^< ^^.?in^E/^.^^200 ^V^ X^3K ( ^i^^) ^tai^ ^fea ^I^T 3- Tt is slibmitted that th^ time is going to expire on 23rd June, 2003 and further ii|i view of the terinuiation as contained in the letter date^ 19/3/2003, the petitioner has bcen called to settle the acc^unts. He niay be allowed the extension of tlme. It 1s for thi wiUun ttieir discretion. Accordingly^ this petiti<j>n stcinds disposed of with the libcrty as prayed. Cerfitied copy as per n4es 'ehs^id^l^ ^R^Jf ^ f^t <F»I^K ^ ^tf^H 3?T^T ^ respondents to consider as It 1s Sd/- Fakhruddin Judge Gt.PRJ—FS/7S-5/200( -50,000. ^ •