AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Barkat Ali Zaidi, J.—An appeal u/s 630 of The companies Act was decided by the Addl. District Judge, Court No. 2, Meerut on 18.12.2006 in the absence of the applicant and his counsel, and the application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act was dismissed, and the appeal was also dismissed, as being time barred.
The applicant has come to this Court u/s 482 Cr.P.C. and his contention is, that on particular date that is on 18.12.2006 an advocate of the Meerut Bar Association, Sri Chandra Prakash Sharma had died, and a condolence meeting was held in the bar association, in which it was decided, that all advocates would abstain from work that day, and that is why the applicant''s counsel did not appear. According to the applicant, the court should have taken note of this circumstance and should not have proceeded to decide the matter, in absence of applicant''s counsel.
According to High Court''s circular the functioning of the Court cannot be suspended without an order of the District Judge, for closure of the Courts on the death of the member of the Bar Association. The courts had, therefore, to function and cases had to be taken up for decision. The resolution of Bar Association cannot be a substitute for the order of the District Judge. The mere fact that the Bar Association had passed the resolution that employees will abstain from work due to the death of one of their colleagues will not suffice in Law to stop the courts from functioning.
There was as such no error on the part of the appellate court in taking up the case for hearing and deciding it on merits, in the absence, of the lawyer.
The court was, therefore, justified in passing an order in the absence of the counsel for the applicant. The application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is, therefore, dismissed.
A legitimate case for contempt of Court arises against Sri Santosh Nayar, who has filed an affidavit in the application because some contumacious remarks have been made in the affidavit dated 9.1.2007 about the appellate Judge. Para-13 of the affidavit is as follows:
That the order dated 18.12.2006 is patently absurd and illegal and has been passed without any application of mind and without complying with the specific direction by this Hon''ble Court in which vide order dated 5.10.2006, this Hon''ble Court directed the applicant to take necessary legal recourse as may be available including the pleas under the Indian Limitation Act. The said order dated 5.10.2006 has been as Annexure No. 2 with this affidavit.
In this paragraph, the use of the word ''ABSURD'' is undignified and even abusive in nature.
Para 14 of the affidavit is as follows:
That the order dated 18.12.2006 is per se illegal and is liable to be set aside and quashed. The order dated 18.12.2006 has been passed as a deliberate mischief as none of the lawyers were present to argue the cases as per the resolution of the Meerut Bar Association on the same date.
In this para, the words ''DELIBERATE MISCHIEF'' go much beyond the ethical circumstance and are insulting and derogatory in nature; since an unjustifiable motive has been attributed to the judge, let a notice be , therefore, issued to the deponent Sri Santosh Nayar of the affidavit in the application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. to show cause within four weeks as to why proceedings be not initiated against him for contempt of Court.