WRIT PETITION 2063/2025

Court: Delhi High Court
Decision date: 2025-08-20
Case number: 2063/2025

Parties

+ W.P.(C) 2063/2025PANAESHA CAPITAL PVTLTD THROUGH SANDEEP PHOGAT PANAESHA CAPITAL PVTLTD THROUGH SANDEEP PHOGAT (PETITIONER)
SHAFI AZAM (RESPONDENT)

Cites (8)

2025 INSC 759 (2025) FOLLOWED
2024 INSC 1024 (2024) CONSIDERED
BIJOY KUMAR MONI versus PARESH MANNA & ANR. (2024)

Full text

solid underline = linked page · dashed underline = case is in our corpus, page not published yet · dotted red = recognized reference, not in our corpus

Show all Body

$~61 to 66

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

& ANR.

.....Petitioners

Through: Mr. Mudit Sood, Advocate versus

SHAFI AZAM

Through: None

.....Respondent

PANAESHA CAPITAL PVT LTD THROUGH SANDEEP PHOGAT & ANR.

.....Petitioners Through: Mr. Mudit Sood, Advocate

versus

DANISH AZIM QURESHI Through: None

.....Respondent

PANAESHA CAPITAL PVTLTD THROUGH SANDEEP PHOGAT & ANR. .....Petitioners

.....Petitioners Through: Mr. Mudit Sood, Advocate

versus

KHUSHBU SHARMA

Through: None

.....Respondent

PANAESHA CAPITAL PVT LTD THROUGH DIRECTOR SANDEEP PHOGAT & ANR. .....Petitioners

Through:

Mr. Mudit Sood, Advocate

versus

SHASHANK JAISWAL

Through: None

.....Respondent

PANAESHA CAPITAL PVT LTD THROUGH SANDEEP PHOGAT & ANR. .....Petitioners

Through: Mr. Mudit Sood, Advocate

versus

DANISH MOIN

Through: None

.....Respondent

PANAESHA CAPITAL PVT LTD THROUGH DIRECTOR SANDEEP PHOGAT & ANR. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Mudit Sood, Advocate

versus

BHAWNA

Through: None

.....Respondent

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIAO R R% 18.02.2025

[Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]

CM APPL. 9706/2025 & CM APPL. 9707/2025 (exemption) in W.P.(C)

2065/2025

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. The petitioners are directed to place on record the complete trial court record within two weeks. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.

3. Through these writ petitions, the petitioner management has assailed awards passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner under the Delhi Shops and Establishments Act. It appears that the petitioner management participated in the proceedings and even filed written statement but thereafter did not lead any evidence to prove the defence set up by them. In

the present petitions, the failure to lead defence evidence has been explained, alleging default and misconduct on the part of the erstwhile counsel. But admittedly, till date no action has been taken against the erstwhile counsel.

4. In the above backdrop, after addressing partly learned counsel for petitioner on instructions of his clients seeks permission to withdraw these six petitions with liberty to approach the execution/recovery authority with the request to allow the payments of the awarded amounts in reasonable instalments.

In the above backdrop, after addressing partly learned counsel for

5. Accordingly, these petitions and accompanying applications are dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as sought.

FEBRUARY 18, 2025/tp

GIRISH KATHPALIA, J

Click here to check corrigendum, if any