9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (3) TMI 534X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e all arising out of the same order. As observed from Para 2 of the impugned order, when the matter was called a lady Counsel seeking to represent the applicant sought an adjournment on the ground that her client (the present applicant) was not responding to her queries. The Tribunal found that it was not a sufficient ground for seeking adjournment. The Tribunal observed that if the client was not ready to brief the advocate, he had to face the consequence. This was made clear to the advocate and asked her to proceed with the case. She declined not to do so. The Bench then proceeded to decide the appeal after taking into consideration the contents in the appeal memorandum. Because the Counsel declined to represent her client the Bench recor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... original was received on a particular date, the period of limitation should be computed from that date; (b) Escort Limited - 2001 (133) E.L.T. 530 (S.C.) wherein the Supreme Court held that if a genuine mistake of the appellants Counsel in not being able to attend the proceedings is brought out, an ex-parte decision can be recalled; (c) ETK Softech (P) Ltd. - 2004 (169) E.L.T. 326 wherein the Tribunal held that the Tribunal had the power to recall an order passed ex-parte if such an order was passed consequent upon the mistake of an advocate and (d) J.K. Synthetics - 1996 (86) E.L.T. 472 (S.C.) wherein the Hon ble Supreme Court held that the Tribunal can restore an appeal decided ex-parte invoking its power under Rule 41 of CESTAT (Procedu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he date of hearing a lady advocate was present and heard to be asking for the adjournment. The order itself came to be passed only when the advocate refused to argue on the ground that her client was not cooperating with her. The ld. Advocate seems to be making an issue that no lady advocate was appointed by his clients on the basis of an affidavit filed by the present Director of the company. The notice of hearing was sent to the advocate Shri V.M. Doiphode clearly stating that the appeal would be heard on 9-1-2002. It would have been another matter had the advocate who appeared on that day sought adjournment for any reason other than lack of co-operation from the client. The Tribunal rightly rejected the plea for adjournment and proceeded ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
