The High Court also sought an explanation regarding the remark made by the judicial magistrate that the court was working ‘with only one stenographer and had a pendency of more than 4,500 cases’.
The Court recorded the government's statement and said no direction was required to be passed on Club's plea seeking stay on eviction and de-recognition orders.
The controversy concerns how courts identify territorial connection and whether they can turn away a suit after accepting that they have jurisdiction to hear it.
The case involves allegations of corruption in the procurement of medicines, surgical items, equipment and linen by the Delhi government's Central Procurement Agency.
In a 246-page judgment delivered on November 3, Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav had said that the Court's territorial jurisdiction was stalling intellectual property suits.
Justice Manmeet Arora transferred the case from her court after observing that the lawyer may now try to influence the client and instigate frivolous allegations against her.
Ganguly's personality and publicity rights are so intertwined with the story of the film that it will not be feasible for the infringing parts to be removed from the film, the Court said.
SFLC had earlier tried to verify the authenticity of the notices from the Delhi Police and X Corp, but communications to the email addresses mentioned in the notices were returned as "undeliverable".