IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
C.R.P. 314/2024 & CM APPL. 63266/2024
OM PRAKSH MALHOTRA & ANR. …..Petitioners
Through: Mr. Tushar Anand, Mr. Aseem Nayyar, Advocates.
versus
SACHIN MALHOTRA . ….Respondent
Through: Ms. Nishita Gupta, Advocate.Mr. Purvesh Buttan and Ms. Nishita Gupta, Advocates for applicant in CM
APPL. 63266/2024.
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL
O R D E R
28.01.2026
1. An adjournment request is made on behalf of counsel for respondent, which is objected to by counsel for petitioner on the ground that even on the previous two dates, an adjournment request was made.
2. Proxy counsel for respondent states that counsel for respondent had to travel outside Delhi for another matter in another State.
3. 4. Upon inquiry, it transpires that counsel for petitioner was not informed about this in the morning. This manner of not informing the counsel of opposite side is strongly deprecated by the Court, since it causes inconvenience to other side’s counsel, for no reason whatsoever.
5. Accordingly, cost of Rs.15,000/- shall be paid by counsel for respondent to counsel for petitioners within a period of two weeks.
6. 7. Re-notify on 15th April 2026.
Order be uploaded on the website of this Court.
ANISH DAYAL, J
JANUARY 28, 2026
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.