9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Setting aside Tribunal orders - Absence of counsel on the date of hearing - Validity of representation by a new advocate without revoking the previous advocate's vakalat - Applicability of Civil Procedure Code in Tribunal proceedings Setting aside Tribunal orders: The petitions sought to set aside the Tribunal's orders dated June 23, 2000, which dismissed the appeals confirming the Competent Authority's order. The appeals arose from the NDPS Act, and despite adjournments, on the date of hearing, the counsel was absent. The Deputy Director argued that the orders were not ex parte but based on merits, hence not falling under rule 11 for setting aside. The petitioners claimed the absence was due to illness and lack of knowledge of the hearing date. The Tribunal found no sufficient cause for the absence and dismissed the petitions. Absence of counsel on the date of hearing: The petitioners argued that the absence of counsel was due to illness and lack of awareness of the hearing date. However, the Tribunal noted that the counsel had not filed an affidavit or medical certificate to support the claim of illness. As the appeals were adjourned in the presence of counsel, the petitioners' claim of unawareness of the hearing date was deemed insufficient. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the petitioners failed to establish sufficient cause for the absence of counsel, leading to the dismissal of the petitions. Validity of representation by a new advocate without revoking the previous advocate's vakalat: The new advocate appearing for the petitioners argued that there was no requirement to obtain consent or seek leave to represent the appellants, despite the previous advocate's vakalat still being in force. However, the Tribunal referred to Order III, Rule 4 of the CPC, emphasizing the necessity for consent or leave to act as counsel in ongoing matters. The Tribunal held that the new advocate's appearance without revoking the previous vakalat was not permissible, leading to the dismissal of the petitions. Applicability of Civil Procedure Code in Tribunal proceedings: The Tribunal discussed the applicability of the CPC in Tribunal proceedings, noting that while not all provisions apply, certain sections, including Order III, Rule 4, are relevant. It highlighted the need for procedural adherence to prevent conflicts between advocates representing the same party. The Tribunal concluded that the principles of the CPC regarding counsel representation are applicable in Tribunal matters. Consequently, it held that a new advocate cannot represent a party without obtaining consent or leave, leading to the dismissal of the petitions. In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the petitions seeking to set aside its orders, emphasizing the importance of establishing sufficient cause for counsel's absence and the necessity of following procedural requirements, including obtaining consent or leave before representing a party in ongoing matters.
|
