Vipin Sanghi, J.

1. By this order I shall dispose of the objections raised by the defendant vide the affidavit dated 10.08.2011 to Mr. Jayant K.Mehta, Advocate appearing on behalf of the plaintiff. The affidavit has been filed on behalf of the defendant by Mr. Ramlal Thakur, the authorized representative of the defendant.

2. Before I narrate the objections of the defendant to the appearance of Mr. Jayant K.Mehta, Advocate on behalf of the plaintiff in these proceedings, it would be appropriate to give a little background of these proceedings.

3. The present is a suit filed under Section 49 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act) seeking enforcement/execution of a foreign award. This suit is pending since the year 2000. Mr. Mehta appeared in these proceedings on behalf of the plaintiff for the first time on 03.05.2010 before the Joint Registrar along with Ms. . Bharti Badesra, Advocate. Thereafter, he appeared again on behalf of the plaintiff on 02.02.2011 before the Joint Registrar. On this day he even cross-examined the witness of the defendant, Mr. Ram Lal Thakur. On 13.05.2011, Mr. Mehta appeared on behalf of the plaintiff before this Court. He also appeared on the following date before this Court i.e. 28.07.2011. On this date, Mr. Mehta, inter alia, advanced arguments on the suit and concluded the same. Adjournment was sought on behalf of the defendant on the ground that the counsel for the defendant was not well. The case was adjourned to 02.08.2011 while making it clear that on the next date no adjournment shall be granted as the matter was part heard. On 02.08.2011, the matter could not be heard as no time was left. The matter was adjourned to 11.08.2011.

4. In the meantime, the defendant filed its affidavit dated 10.08.2011 without seeking any prior permission of the Court to raise an objection to the appearance of Mr. Mehta, Advocate on behalf of the plaintiff. The precise objection of the defendant as raised in the affidavit is that Mr. Mehta was involved in and actively participated on behalf of the defendant Shivnath Rai Harnarain & Company in the matter of Glencore Grain v. Shivnath Rai Harnarain & Company, Ex. P.No. 72/2009. It is stated that Mr. Jayant K.Mehta participated in the meetings and conferences with the officers/ex-partners of the defendant firm along with their advocates and was also actively involved in detailed and lengthy briefing sessions with the Senior Advocate along with ex-partners of the defendant's firm.

5. It is claimed that Mr. Mehta was revealed very vital and significant information which was confidential in nature during the meetings and conferences, including in relation to the aspects of dissolution of the defendant firm and the alleged liability towards the petitioners in those proceedings and towards the present plaintiff. It is further stated that Mr. Mehta was also involved in preparation and drafting of Regular First Appeal on behalf of the defendant firm and also appeared on behalf of the defendant firm before the Division Bench of this Court in RFA(OS) No. 17/2009 along with other advocates on 10.02.2009. A copy of the order dated 10.02.2009 passed in FAO(OS) No. 17/2009 has been filed along with this affidavit in support of this submission, which records the appearance of Mr. Jayant K. Mehta on behalf of the defendant firm herein. It is further stated that after the aforesaid RFA (OS) was dismissed on the ground of maintainability, the defendant filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court in which Mr. Mehta was not involved. Mr. Mehta, thereafter, started appearing in the present matter against the defendant.

6. It is claimed that the issue involved in the matter of Glencore Grain v. Shivnath Rai Harnarain & Company, Ex. P.No. 72/2009 and the present proceedings is totally identical. It is stated that substantial internal and confidential information was provided to Mr. Mehta which he has misused by one or the other means.

7. The deponent claims that he was