TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether sufficient cause was shown for the absence of counsel on the date when the appeals were disposed of, so as to justify setting aside the order dismissing the appeals; (ii) whether a fresh advocate could appear for the petitioners without the consent or no objection of the advocate already on record, or without leave of the Tribunal determining the existing vakalat.
Issue (i): Whether sufficient cause was shown for the absence of counsel on the date when the appeals were disposed of, so as to justify setting aside the order dismissing the appeals.
Analysis: The petitions depended on the assertion that counsel was ill and the petitioners were unaware of the hearing date. The record showed that the appeals had already been adjourned in the presence of counsel, and no further intimation to the petitioners was necessary. No affidavit from the concerned counsel and no medical certificate were produced, and even the nature of the alleged illness was not stated. In the absence of supporting material, the explanation for non-appearance was not accepted as sufficient cause.
Conclusion: Sufficient cause was not made out, and the order dismissing the appeals could not be set aside.
Issue (ii): Whether a fresh advocate could appear for the petitioners without the consent or no objection of the advocate already on record, or without leave of the Tribunal determining the existing vakalat.
Analysis: The Tribunal applied the principle embodied in Order III, rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and held that a vakalat continues until determined with leave of the court or by the required written consent. Since an advocate already held a subsisting vakalat, another advocate could not validly act for the same party without consent or leave. The Tribunal also treated this approach as consistent with its power to regulate procedure under the NDPS Act and with the requirement of orderly conduct of proceedings.
Conclusion: A fresh advocate could not appear without consent or no objection of the advocate on record, or without leave determining the existing vakalat.
Final Conclusion: The applications to set aside the earlier dismissal orders failed on merits, and the Tribunal reaffirmed the procedural requirement governing counsel's appearance before it.
Ratio Decidendi: In proceedings before the Tribunal, an order disposing of an appeal will not be set aside absent proved sufficient cause for non-appearance, and a newly engaged advocate cannot act while a prior vakalat subsists unless the earlier authority is properly determined or consent and leave are obtained.
TaxTMI 
