9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (5) TMI 268X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of which the Bar Members have resolved not to appear before the Bench and, therefore, case may be adjourned. Another application dated May 25, 2007, has been filed by Shri Chetan Jaiswal, Joint Director (B CM), M.P. State Electricity Board, Jabalpur, who requested since counsel of the Board Shri K. Kumar, FCA, is unable to appear due to unavoidable circumstances so request was made that case may be adjourned to be heard later on. The learned Departmental representative, Shri Ramprasad, strongly opposed both the applications seeking adjournment in miscellaneous application on the ground that, firstly, no counsel can boycott any court or Bench of the Tribunal by resorting to strike, etc., as the honourable Supreme Court has specifically condemned such action of the Bar Members in a number of cases and held that adjournment on this ground cannot be granted, therefore, application of the assessee as well as its counsel is liable to be rejected. Moreover, this application has been moved to recall order of the Tribunal passed under section 254(2) and as per the honourable Orissa High Court in the case of CIT v. ITAT [1992] 196 ITR 838, and this is the only decision on the point, as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unctionary who resisted, through legal means, a pressure strategy slammed on him in open court." It was further held: "If any counsel does not want to appear in a particular court, that too for justifiable reasons, professional decorum and etiquette require him to give up his engagement in that court so that the party can engage another counsel. But retaining the brief of his client and at the same time abstaining from appearing in that court, that too not on any particular day on account of some personal inconvenience of the counsel but as a permanent feature, is unprofessional as also unbecoming of the status of an advocate. No court is obliged to adjourn a cause because of the strike call given by any Association of Advocates or a decision to boycott the courts either in general or any particular court. It is the solemn duty of every court to proceed with the judicial business during court hours. No court should yield to pressure tactics or boycott calls or any kind of browbeating. A three-judge Bench of this court has reminded members of the legal profession in Lt. Col. S.J. Chaudhary v. State (Delhi Admn.) [1984] 1 SCC 722 that it is the duty of every advocate who accept ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity and development. Strikes by the professionals including the advocates cannot be equated with strikes undertaken by the industrial workers in accordance with the statutory provisions. The services rendered by the advocates to their clients are regulated by a contract between the two besides statutory limitations, restrictions and guidelines incorporated in the Advocates Act, the Rules made thereunder and rules of procedure adopted by the Supreme Court and the High Courts, abstaining from the courts by the advocates, by and large, does not only affect the persons belonging to the legal profession but also hampers the process of justice sometimes urgently needed by the consumers of justice, the litigants. Legal profession is essentially a service oriented profession. The relationship between the lawyer and his client is one of trust and confidence. With the strike by the lawyers, the process of court intended to secure justice is observed which is unwarranted under the provisions of the Advocates Act. Law is no trade and briefs of the litigants not merchandise. The court in Bar Council of Maharashtra v. M.V. Dabholkar [1976] 2 SCC 291 placed on record its expectations from the B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Supreme Court in a latest decision in the case of Harish Uppal v. Union of India reported in AIR 2003 SC 739 (G.B. Pattanaik C.J., M.B. Shah J. and J. Doraiswamy Raju J.) is very strong words. In view of the facts, circumstances and abovenoted authoritative pronouncement of the honourable Supreme Court we hold that adjournment as sought for by the counsel of the assessee or by the assessee itself, taking same plea as taken by counsel, cannot be granted as such same is rejected and we proceed to decide this application after considering the argument of the learned Departmental representative and material on record in the light of precedents relied upon. Since the present application under section 254(2) is against the order passed by the Tribunal under section 254(2) dated June 19, 2006, and the honourable Orissa High Court in the case of CIT v. ITAT [1992] 196 ITR 838 has held as under: "Section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, empowers the Tribunal to amend any order passed by it under sub-section (1) with a view to rectifying any mistake apparent from the record at any time within four years from the date of the order. Therefore, to attract the applicability of section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
