Skip to main content

Communication gap between party and advocate held to be sufficient reason for non-appearance

In Ambaji Ganu Gurav v. Sachin Chandrakant Narkar, the appellant had lodged a complaint against the respondent alleging the commission of various offences but when the matter was posted for recording of appellant’s evidence, he did not appear for three consecutive dates. The respondent moved an application under Section 256 CrPC which was allowed by the trial court and therefore the complaint was dismissed for want of prosecution. This order of the trial court was impugned in the instant appeal.

The Bombay High Court perused the record and considered the submissions made by the parties. Although the counsel for the respondent-accused vehemently opposed; however, the Court was inclined to remand the matter back to trial court for a decision on merits. It was observed that primary function of the Court is to adjudicate the dispute on its own merit rather adhering to technicalities of law. On perusal of the roznama, the High Court was satisfied that the appellant was diligent in prosecuting his case. The reason stated for non-appearance was stated to be communication gap between the appellant and his advocate, which found favour with the Court. Hence, the order impugned was set aside and the complaint was restored to the file of the trial court for deciding the same in accordance with law.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more