Delhi High Court Appoints Sparsh Bhargava as Nodal Counsel in Anti-Profiteering Cases

In a significant development in the ongoing anti-profiteering litigation, the High Court, on May 9, 2025, appointed Advocate Sparsh Bhargava as one of the nodal counsels from the petitioners’ side to oversee the sector-wise grouping of pending matters. This move aims to streamline hearings in the high-profile anti-profiteering batch matters.

Under the direction of the Court, efforts have been made to classify each pending case based on the sector involved, such as retail, FMCG, real estate, and others. While a majority of the parties and their legal representatives have submitted the necessary details to aid this classification, several matters remain unresponded.

Advocate Sparsh Bhargava has urged counsels representing parties in these unresponsive matters (list attached at the end of the article) to come forward at the earliest with the relevant sector classification and case particulars. “Since the complete list of grouped matters must be submitted to the bench today, immediate cooperation is crucial,” Bhargava stated.

He further requested that if any legal representatives are aware of the counsels acting in these cases, they should facilitate communication promptly. This collaboration will ensure comprehensive representation and procedural efficiency before the Court.

Zoheb Hossain, Standing Counsel, continues to represent the government’s side in this multifaceted litigation, while Advocate Sparsh Bhargava, now acting as one of the nodal counsels, leads the coordination efforts for the petitioners.

The High Court’s initiative to organize the matters sector-wise reflects its intent to expedite the hearings in these economically significant cases concerning alleged profiteering under GST regulations.

Read More: How To Save Money Fast On Low Income in India (2025 Guide)

Mariya Paliwala
Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You May Also Like

Supreme Court Reserves Verdict on Justice Yashwant Varma’s Plea Against In-House Probe, Request for FIR

The Supreme Court on Wednesday reserved its ruling on two crucial petitions…

Cheque Bounce Complaint Valid Even Without Naming Partnership Firm as Accused: Supreme Court 

The Supreme Court has held that a complaint under Section 138 of…

Critical Analysis of the Uniform Civil Code in India

The Uniform Civil Code (UCC) has been a subject of intense debate…

Supreme Court Issues Comprehensive 2025 Guidelines on Retention and Destruction of Administrative Records

In a significant move aimed at streamlining internal record management, the Supreme…