Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Korba Metals And Conductors Pvt. Ltd. vs Union Of India on 16 December, 2015

                                                                       1


             W.P. No. 5195/2009, W.P. No.6709/2011, W.P.
             No.7158/2011, 14928/2013, W.P. No.8918/2011, W.P.
             No.11144/2011, W.P. Nos. 12431/2011, 12438/2011,
             12472/2011, 12474/2011, 12478/2011, W.P. Nos.
             14714/2011, 14716/2011, W.P. No. 14993/2011, W.P.
             No. 15621/2011, CONC No. 1658/2011, W.P. No.
             18677/2012, W.P. No. 7006/2013, W.P. No. 19337/2013,
             W.P. No. 2314/2014 AND W.P. No. 13647/2015
16.12.2015

Petitioner appears in person.

He prays for time on the ground that his Advocate has expressed inability to appear in Court presumably because of the boycott call given by the High Court Bar Associations.

That can be no ground for adjournment. The Court notice was issued on 30.11.2015 to the petitioner making it clear that he has to make necessary arrangement to espouse his cause and/or to remain personally present in Court for that purpose on the next date of hearing, failing which the Court may proceed with the matter in the light of the observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal Vs. Union of India and others - 2003(2) SCC 45 (Para 35).

Today, the petitioner appeared and prayed for time for the reasons mentioned above and further submits that he has no capacity to argue the matter himself without 2 assistance of the Advocate. He prays for time.

By way of indulgence and last opportunity, hearing is deferred till 05.01.2016.

No request for further adjournment on any count will be entertained on the next date of hearing.

W.P. Nos.6709/2011 & 8918/2011 & 12431/2011, 12438/2011, 12472/2011, 12474/2011, 12478/2011 & 14714/2011, 14716/2011 & 14993/2011 & 15621/2011 & 18677/2012, 19337/2013, 13647/2015 Petitioners in respective petitions appear in person. They pray for time on the ground that their Advocates have expressed inability to appear in Court presumably because of the boycott call given by the High Court Bar Associations.

Even in these cases, the petitioners have appeared pursuant to Court notice issued on 30.11.2015 as in the previous case. They pray for time and submit that they have no capacity to argue the matter themselves without assistance of the Advocates.

By way of indulgence and last opportunity, hearing is deferred till 05.01.2016.

No request for further adjournment on any count will be entertained on the next date of hearing.

W.P. No.7158/2011 and 14928/2013 Shri Kedar Prasad Pathak appears for the petitioner and claims to have authority to represent the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner has given him authority to argue the case himself.

The petitioner Company having engaged Advocate to appear in the matter, until the Advocate is discharged, no other person can be permitted to argue on behalf of the petitioner. Besides, the authority letter does not refer to the fact that Shri Kedar Prasad Pathak has been authorized to discharge the Advocate engaged by the petitioner Company.

Realizing this position, he prays for time to take further instructions and produce valid authority letter supported by resolution passed by the petitioner Company. List on 05.01.2016.

No request for further adjournment on any count will be entertained on the next date of hearing.

Shri Pradyumn Sunil Jain appears for the petitioner and claims to have authority to represent the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner has given him authority to argue the case himself.

The petitioner Company having engaged Advocate 4 to appear in the matter, until the Advocate is discharged, no other person can be permitted to argue on behalf of the petitioner. Besides, the authority letter does not refer to the fact that Shri Pradyumn Sunil Jain has been authorized to discharge the Advocate engaged by the petitioner Company.

Realizing this position, he prays for time to take further instructions and produce valid authority letter supported by resolution passed by the petitioner Company. List on 05.01.2016.

No request for further adjournment on any count will be entertained on the next date of hearing.

None appears for the applicant when the matter is called out - presumably because of the boycott call given by the High Court Bar Association. The Court, however, is obliged to proceed with the matter, as observed by the Supreme Court in the case of Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal Vs. Union of India and others - 2003(2) SCC 45 (Para

35).

By way of indulgence, as the litigant should not suffer, we direct the Registry to issue SPC to the petitioner, represented by Advocate to make necessary arrangement to espouse his cause and/or to remain 5 personally present in Court or through authorized representative, for that purpose on the next date of hearing, failing which the Court may proceed with the matter appropriately.

SPC is made returnable on 05.01.2016. The notice to clearly mention that if none appears for the petitioner on the next date, the Court will have no other option, but to proceed with the matter appropriately.

Shri Aji Mohammed Harun - partner of the petitioner Company appears for the petitioner and claims to have authority to represent the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner has given him authority to argue the case himself.

The petitioner Company having engaged Advocate to appear in the matter, until the Advocate is discharged, no other person can be permitted to argue on behalf of the petitioner. Besides, the authority letter does not refer to the fact that Shri Aji Mohammad Harun has been authorized to discharge the Advocate engaged by the petitioner Company.

Realizing this position, he prays for time to take further instructions and produce valid authority letter 6 supported by resolution passed by the petitioner Company. List on 05.01.2016.

No request for further adjournment on any count will be entertained on the next date of hearing.

Smt. Anita Tiwari - petitioner appears in person. She has engaged Advocate to espouse her cause. Even today as on 30.11.2015, the Advocate engaged by the petitioner has chosen not to appear in Court - presumably because of the boycott call given by the High Court Bar Associations.

That can be no ground for adjournment as observed by the Supreme Court in the case of Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal Vs. Union of India and others - 2003(2) SCC 45 (Para 35).

On the last occasion, SPC was issued to the petitioner to give one opportunity.

Pursuant to the said Court notice the petitioner has appeared today. She did make attempt to put forth her grievance but it is not specifically dealing with the issues that may have to be considered by the Court only when the impugned order can be set aside. We find that the petitioner is not capable of comprehending of legal issues. That may have to be answered by the Court to 7 consider the challenge to the impugned orders.

By way of one more indulgence and last opportunity, hearing is deferred till 05.01.2016 and make it clear that no request for further adjournment on any count will be entertained at the instance of the petitioner on the next date of hearing.

             (A. M. Khanwilkar)               (C.V. Sirpurkar)
      Chief Justice                      Judge
psm