Case Law Details
CA Sandeep Kanoi
Hon’ble Bombay HC has recently held in the case of Thermax Babcock & Wilcox Ltd. Vs. CIT that In the event, the Counsel engaged by the Department is absent without a justifiable or reasonable cause, we will invariably impose costs and to be paid by the Counsel personally. Equally, we would proceed in his absence. In the event, the Appellant or his Advocate is absent, we will proceed to dismiss the Appeal for non prosecution. Thereafter, no application for restoration of the Appeal will be considered unless the Appellant makes out a sufficient cause for absence.
Full Text of the judgment is as follows
Bombay High Court
Income Tax Appeal No. 17 OF 2002
M/s Thermax Babcock & Wilcox Ltd.
Versus
The Commissioner of Income Tax.
DATE : 04th March, 2014
PC:
1. At the request of Mr.Jhaveri, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant, and in order to enable him to get ready and argue this Appeal, stand over to 24th March, 2014.
2. We have noted that the Final Hearing Board consists of all Appeals of 2002. First two matters have been adjourned by us only because the Department or the Advocate for Appellant sought accommodation. They did not have either papers or were not ready with the case. Such state of affairs will not be tolerated hereafter. In the event, the Counsel engaged by the Department is absent without a justifiable or reasonable cause, we will invariably impose costs and to be paid by the Counsel personally. Equally, we would proceed in his absence. In the event, the Appellant or his Advocate is absent, we will proceed to dismiss the Appeal for non prosecution. Thereafter, no application for restoration of the Appeal will be considered unless the Appellant makes out a sufficient cause for absence.
3. We would also expect the Department and equally the Excise, Customs, Income Tax, all of which are stated to have engaged separate Advocates, to inform and caution their Advocates that their absence would result in either this Court proceeding exparte or the Appeals of the Department being dismissed for non prosecution. This Court will not hereafter countenance that the matters are adjourned and not heard due to absence of the Advocates. The Department is equally responsible to the Court and must ensure the presence of their Advocates. In the event only one Advocate is being briefed, the Department may consider handing over and entrusting the papers to an additional Advocate so as not to cause inconvenience to this Court. The disobedience of this order or inconvenience to this Court, would result in the Joint Secretary, Department of Law & Judiciary, Government of India, so also, the Secretary, Department of Law & Judiciary, Government of India, remaining present in the Court.
4. A copy of this order be forwarded to all concerned Authorities.
(GIRISH S. KULKARNI, J.)
(S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)
Author Bio
The approach of the Court is commendable; but the problem remains the same if not implemented for the Senior Advocates. Courts grant concessions to Senior Advocate who accept briefs more than they can handle and seek adjournments time and again. The weakness of judiciary to the senior members of the bar is a biggest weakness. I am constrained to say unless the Bench gives up their weakness, the things will not improve. Today our Apex Court also shows this weakness and today a common man confidently feel no justice in Apex Court. Well the Government do not bother about Courts including the Apex Court. If our Apex Court handles the way it is handling the Sahara Chief, the arrogant corporates and irresponsible Govt. Officials will fall in line. Our constitutional courts should confine some officials to prison, without accepting routine apologies. Change is need of the hour.
“absence , without reasonable cause'< From a puritan's , more so from the concerned parties' , point of view,the court can only be said to have been lenient by stopping short of using a more appropriate words of caution to the erring representatives / counsels. What needs to be realized is the serious, irreparable, consequence of any procrastination of court proceedings; particularly where the blame lies entirely with the representing counsels' recalcitrance /indifference. That leads to not only 'denied justice', but the quality of justice itself on account of the increased burden in the matter of disposal, that brings to bear on the otherwise avoidable stress and strain to which the bench is put to suffer,
Pithily stated,as a great legal legend, Palkhivala frankly pinpointed but in his own words,it is the ideal quality of excellence in lawyers alone that ultimately helps /matters, by functioning as a catalyst,in a proper administration of law and adjudication by the Bench.
Very good decision taken by the Hon’ble Court. Delay justice means no justice. The lawyers must serious for his profession and should not asked for adjournment. This action must be followed by lower court in all proceeding.
On other part the advocate has to take matter up to he can handle, otherwise, he leave the matter.
It is a welcome order, atleast in the interest of the Judicial system and consequently in the larger interest of the Public-litigants.
Keep Smiling …. Hemant Agarwal