Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar – Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member:
We are finding that we had dictated in Revision Petition No.45/2011 the detailed order and not one line order like “Issue Notice before Admission returnable on 17.06.2011”. The steno who was sitting on dais on that day simply typed this one line order and omitted the following order with continuation to one line order. We are reproducing that order that we had dictated to the steno:
“Notice before admission returnable on 17.6.2011.
Notice on stay application returnable on 17.6.2011. Ad-interim stay to further proceeding in Complaint No.PDF/155/2010 till further orders. Mr.Uday Warunjikar appeared on instruction of M/s.D.H. Law Associates along with Ld.Advocate Mr.S. Shrivastav, Partner of D.H. Law Associates. Even there is no vakalatnama of Mr.Warunjikar, we allowed him.”
Except that, only “issue notice before admission returnable on 17.6.2011” was typed by the steno and it was signed by this Commission.
After this application was moved, we called the said steno along with the steno diary. We have got from her the order duly typed as was dictated by this Commission on 01.04.2011. Accordingly she has given typed portion of the whole order which we had dictated in Open Court and she has also produced steno diary in support what she has typed and given to us. She has also given apology letter in writing addressed to the Registrar of this Commission dated 02.04.2012.
In this view of the matter, we are finding that the order typed by the steno was due to inadvertence. Order as dictated is also placed on record and reproduced along with this order. Therefore, this application for speaking to the minutes, cannot be entertained by us and hence, we dispose of this application but we direct that copy of this order be supplied to both the parties, forthwith.
Pronounced on 4th April, 2012
