CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsDivision Bench(2008) 05 BOM CK 0031

Dalal Brothers Freight Forwarders Pvt. Ltd. vs Transport and Dock Worker''s Union and others

Bombay High Court · Decided on 5 May 2008 · Citation: (2009) 120 FLR 569

HON’BLE JUDGES
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J · P.B. Majmudar, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
O.O.C.J. Appeal No. 8 of 2008

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 340 words

R.M.S. Khandeparkar and P.B. Majmudar, JJ.—Ms. Sanchari Nandi he learned Advocate appearing for the appellant states that the counsel who was to argue the appeal is outside India, and therefore, the matter may be fixed after vacation. The request is seriously opposed on behalf of the respondent No. 1 stating that the writ petition in which the interim order was passed and which is ought to be challenged by way of appeal itself, had been finally disposed of on 9th November, 2007.

2.

Once the petition challenging the impugned order has been disposed of, the question of entertaining the appeal against the interim order does not arise and all the interim orders passed during pendency of the petition get merged in the final order. In the case in hand, the impugned order was passed on 29th October, 2007, Thereafter, on 19th November, 2007, the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition itself by dismissing the same.

On the above ground itself, the appeal is liable to be disposed of.

3.

Even otherwise, merely because the counsel is outside India cannot be a justification for adjournment of the matter. If the counsel is outside India, it is the duty of the parties to ensure another counsel who can appear before the Court on the date of hearing of the matter. Besides, the contents of the order dated 19th November, 2007 under which the writ petition has been disposed of, also justify rejection of the present appeal in limine. Admittedly, inspite of the time having been given to deposit the amount, the appellant did not deposit the same which resulted in dismissal of the writ petition itself.

4.

In the circumstances, taking into consideration the fact that the Writ Petition No. 2070 of 2007 wherein the impugned order has been passed, itself has been disposed of by the learned Single Judge, the question of entertaining the present appeal does not arise, and hence the question of adjournment of the matter also does not arise.

The appeal, therefore, is dismissed with costs.