9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (9) TMI 1571 - HC - CustomsSeeking modification of the order as well as praying for extension of time - HELD THAT - This Court is of the considered opinion that the review application is pending before this Court for the past about 8 years. All along the learned counsel for the review petitioner on record was continuing as a counsel on record. When the matter is listed for final hearing it is represented that the learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner made a submission that he has given the change of vakalat. Undoubtedly it is a privileged communication and transaction between the lawyer and the litigant. Courts cannot have any say in respect of such communications or transactions between the lawyers and the litigants unless it is brought to the notice of this Court that some misconduct or otherwise is committed. When handing over of the bundle is or a communication between the lawyer and the litigant is a privileged communication it is the duty of the litigant as well as the lawyer to make alternate arrangements either by appearing in person or by engaging any other Advocate of the choice of the litigant. At the outset any litigant approaching the Court of law is expected to pursue the matter diligently either in person or through a lawyer. The lawyer is also expected to perform his duties not only towards his client but also towards the Court - no lawyer can come to the Court and simply say that they have handed over the bundle to the client and that they won t argue the case. Courts cannot take the responsibility of conducting the case in respect of such litigant or on behalf of such lawyers. Even in cases where memo is filed it is the duty of the lawyer who received the legal fees and the litigant to ensure that an alternate arrangement is made to represent the case so as to assist the Court for the effective disposal of the cases. This Court is of the considered opinion that once a show cause notice is issued the noticee is expected to submit his objections explanations documents to the competent authority and the authority is bound to consider the same independently on merits and take a decision and pass orders by following the procedures as contemplated under law. Conclusion - i) The order is modified to ensure independent adjudication based on the case s unique facts. ii) The delay in filing the review application is implicitly condoned allowing the Court to address the substantive issues. Petition allowed.
ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal issues considered in this judgment include:
ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Modification of the Order in W.P. No. 19153 of 2008 The Court considered whether the order dated 29.09.2008 required modification. The primary argument for modification was based on the assertion that the facts of the current case were distinguishable from those in WP No. 18918 of 2000 and related cases. The Court noted that the reference made in paragraph No. 5 of the original order needed modification because the facts and circumstances of the present case were not akin to those previously decided. The Court emphasized the importance of adjudicating each case independently based on its specific facts and circumstances. Condonation of Delay The revenue/respondents filed a condone delay petition seeking to condone a delay of 1514 days in filing the review application. The Court implicitly considered the delay by proceeding with the substantive issues of the case, indicating an acceptance of the reasons provided for the delay, although specific details on the reasoning were not elaborated in the judgment. Application of Precedents from WP No. 18918 of 2000 The Court was tasked with determining whether the legal principles from the previous judgment in WP No. 18918 of 2000 were applicable to the current case. The review petitioners argued that the previous decision should not apply due to distinguishable facts. The Court agreed, stating that each case must be adjudicated based on its unique facts, and improper application of precedents could lead to unnecessary implications in legal proceedings. Review Application Based on Alleged Error The review application was filed on the grounds of an error apparent in applying the ratio from the previous decision. The Court found merit in this argument, acknowledging that the facts of the present case warranted independent consideration. Consequently, the Court modified the original order to direct the respondents to complete the process initiated by the show cause notice independently and in accordance with the law. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS The Court's significant holdings include:
Core Principles Established The judgment reinforces the principle that each legal case must be adjudicated based on its specific facts and circumstances. The improper application of precedents without thorough comparison of facts can lead to unjust outcomes. The judgment also highlights the obligations of lawyers to their clients and the Court, emphasizing the need for diligence and proper representation throughout legal proceedings. Final Determinations on Each Issue
|
