9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 761X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... COURT] and also of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in SOHANLAL ARYA VERSUS THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [ 2019 (11) TMI 1816 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT] it is claimed that his fee, may be waived for filing the Appeal. In the first judgment of Rafiq Anr. relied upon by the Appellant, it is noted that there was an ex-parte order of dismissal of Appeal, which was passed by the Hon ble High Court on non-appearance of Appellant s Learned Counsel on the date of Hearing and the application, was made by the Learned Counsel for Recalling the Order and for permission to participate in the hearing of the Appeal, rejected on ground of unexplained delay in presenting the Application to the Court. The Hon ble Apex Court held that rejection of the Application was not justified as a Party, should not suffer for the inaction, deliberate, omission or misdemeanour of his agent i.e. the Lawyer. The case relied upon is distinguished in the sense that the Lawyer, did not appear and defaulted, but, in the instant case, he was very much present in the Hearing, and the Appellant, was also fully aware of the proceedings. Even assuming that the Appellant, was not aware of the fact that Mr. Sumit Jain, was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... while considering limitation. 2. It is contended by the Petitioner that Mr. Sumit Jain who was the Authorised Counsel and was representing the Appellant Mr. Prem Prakash had defrauded him and without his instructions made the prayer to withdraw the compensation application. Mr. Sumit Jain represented himself as an advocate. Later it came to be known that he was neither an Advocate nor Chartered Accountant, Company Secretary or Cost Accountant. On coming to know about this, he engaged another Advocate. When the new Advocate went on to refile the Compensation Application in the Registry, it was informed by the registry that a fresh court fees of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) had to be paid as the previous Compensation Application No.01 of 2022 was dismissed as withdrawn. It is claimed by the Appellant that it was under the bona-fide belief that Mr. Sumit Jain is an Advocate and holds a license to practice, engaged him as his authorised counsel to present his case before the NCLAT. Mr. Sumit Jain was also engaged in other matters in this Tribunal as well as in Competition Commission of India. It is only from the order dated 22.07.2022 in Competition Appeal (AT) No. 27 of 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... PWD CPWD was in contravention of the provisions of Section 4(2)(a)(i) of the Competition Act. CPWD has modified the conditions since then. Also MPPWD has developed its own laboratories at circle level and the condition of 20% material testing through NABL accredited laboratories is no more mandatory. In view of the above, CCI submits that no prima-facie competition issue remained to be investigated and the case was closed. 5. The 1st Respondent / CCI claims that out of the above order dated 17.03.2017, Compensation Application No.1 of 2022 was filed by the Applicant through Mr. Sumit Jain, seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.9 Crores against the DG, CPWD and Rs.30 Crore against the Principal Secretary, MPPWD. The CCI submits that the applicant has put up a completely false defence with regard to Mr. Sumit Jain that he was not an advocate and he was under the belief that Mr. Sumit Jain was an Advocate. The CCI submits that Mr. Sumit Jain was a proprietor of an accreditation agency and he, in connivance with the applicant have filed two more applications before CCI Case No. 25 of 2020 and Case No.48 of 2021, one in the name of the Applicant and other in the name of son of the Appl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the cause of justice and in suitable cases, waive payment of fee or portion thereof, taking into consideration the economic condition or indigent circumstances of the petitioner or appellant or applicant or such other reason, as the case may be, by an order for reasons to be recorded [EMPHASIS SUPPLIED] 9. The above-mentioned Rule provides for waiving the fee, taking into consideration the economic condition or indigent circumstances of the Appellant. Herein, it is claimed that the Advocate was not really an Advocate and he withdrew the Compensation Application without the instructions from the Appellant. Also relying upon the judgment of Hon ble Apex Court in Rafiq Anr. (supra) and also of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Sohanlalarya (supra) it is claimed that his fee , may be waived for filing the Appeal . 10. In the first judgment of Rafiq Anr. (supra) relied upon by the Appellant, it is noted that there was an ex-parte order of dismissal of `Appeal , which was passed by the Hon ble High Court on non-appearance of Appellant s Learned Counsel on the date of Hearing and the application, was made by the Learned Counsel for Recalling the Order and for permission to participate i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
