Nawab Malik consents to re-hearing of Wankhede’s plea

Nawab Malik on Friday presented a draft of proposed consent terms in the appeal filed by Dnyandev Wankhede

Mumbai NCP leader Nawab Malik on Friday presented a draft of proposed consent terms in the appeal filed by Dnyandev Wankhede, father of NCB zonal director Sameer Wankhede. Wankhede filed an appeal against the order passed by the single-judge bench of the Bombay high court (HC) on November 22 in the interim application in the defamation suit filed by him.

Nawab Malik has expressed willingness for setting aside of the single-judge bench order of November 22 (HT File)

In the consent terms, Malik has expressed willingness for setting aside of the single-judge bench order of November 22, have the interim application heard all over again by another single judge bench, file a detailed affidavit in response to the interim application and has assured of abiding by the undertaking given by him to the division bench of the HC which is hearing the appeal by Wankhede. The division bench has granted time to Wankhede’s lawyers to respond to Malik’s proposal by Monday.

On Friday, advocate Karl Tamboly, who represents Malik in the appeal filed by Wankhede, informed the division bench of Justice S J Kathawalla and Justice Milind Jadhav that his client had prepared a draft of consent terms in response to the appeal filed by Wankhede.

The proposed consent terms by Malik are: Setting aside of single-judge order; another single-judge bench should hear parties afresh; Malik be permitted to file a comprehensive affidavit in reply to the interim application in the defamation suit; Malik would abide by the statement made before the HC in appeal till interim application was reheard and re-hearing of the interim application be uninfluenced by the earlier order.

Senior advocate Dr Birendra Saraf for Wankhede welcoming the proposed consent terms, objected to the setting aside of the 50-page single-judge bench order as it contained any observations that were in their favour. However, he agreed that as the November 22 order had refused to grant an interim injunction against Malik, he wanted time to speak and explain the intricacies of the consent terms to his client.

Though the bench asked him to decide on the consent terms in five minutes by speaking to his client, Dr Saraf sought time till Monday which the bench granted.