Respondent's Delay Tactics Lead to Closure of Arguments; Petitioner's Rejoinder Allowed The Allahabad High Court, under Justice Vivek Chaudhary, found that the respondent company engaged in delaying tactics by changing counsels without valid ...
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
Respondent's Delay Tactics Lead to Closure of Arguments; Petitioner's Rejoinder Allowed
The Allahabad High Court, under Justice Vivek Chaudhary, found that the respondent company engaged in delaying tactics by changing counsels without valid reasons or court permission during the hearing. As a result, the Court closed the respondent's arguments due to the absence of instructing counsel and allowed the petitioner's Senior Advocate to make rejoinder arguments. The order was reserved for further consideration, with the Court noting that the respondent's application would be considered in the final decision.
Issues: Delaying tactics by respondent company in changing counsels during the hearing.
The judgment delivered by Justice Vivek Chaudhary of the Allahabad High Court pertains to a case where the petitioner, represented by Senior Advocate Sri Prashant Chandra and counsel Sri Pritish Kumar, was arguing for the petitioner, Reserve Bank of India. The respondent company, M/S Sahara India Financial Corporation Ltd., was initially represented by Senior Counsel Sri Jaideep Narain Mathur and counsel Sri Kumar Ayush. The hearing commenced on 21.08.2018 with arguments from both sides. However, the respondent company's counsels sought adjournments on multiple dates due to various reasons, leading to delays in completing the arguments. When the matter was finally supposed to be concluded, a new Senior Advocate, Sri Vikas Singh, appeared for the respondent company without the earlier counsels having instructions in the matter. Justice Vivek Chaudhary noted that changing counsels at such a late stage, without valid reasons and without the leave of the Court, amounted to delaying tactics by the respondent company. The Court emphasized that allowing a new counsel to argue at this stage, when arguments were nearly completed, was inappropriate and against legal norms. Consequently, the Court closed the arguments of the respondent company due to the absence of instructing counsel. The petitioner's Senior Advocate was then permitted to make rejoinder arguments, which were concluded, and the order was reserved for further consideration. The Court highlighted that the application filed by the respondent company would be considered in the final decision.
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
