Dismissed

Jairaj Vallabhdas Java v. the Chief Enforcement Officer and Anr.

Bombay HC3 Apr 2009APPP/73/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Bombay refused to entertain and dismissed an application for restoration of a criminal case against the applicant. The court held that the applicant "s repeated default and laches, spanning over four dismissals since 2005, warranted non-condonation; accordingly, the application was disposed of as dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Application for restoration dismissed; no opening for the case to proceed or be quashed.

Jairaj Vallabhdas Java Vs the Chief… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶2

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.73 OF 2008 IN CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1634 OF 1998

¶3

Jaraj Vallabhada Java

¶4

.. Applicant

¶5

V/s.

¶6

The Chief Enforcement Officer & Anr.

¶7

.. Respondents

¶8

Mr.Subhash Jha i/b.M/s.Law Global for the Applicant. Mr.J.C.Satpute for Respondent No.1. Ms.S.D.Shinde, A.P.P.for the State.

¶9

CORAM : A.R.JOSHI, J.

¶10

DATED : APRIL 3RD, 2009.

¶11

P.C.

¶12

Heard rival submissions for some time.

¶13

It is the application for restoration of earlier dismissed criminal Application No.1634 of 1998 to the file. Present application

¶14

¶15

was filed challenging the order of dismissed for default passed by this Court on 7^th January, 2008.

¶16

In the body of the said Application curiously enough, the earlier dismissals for three more occasions were not mentioned and what is mentioned is regarding how the last dismissal i.e. 7^th January, 2008 happened. There was nobdoy present on behalf of the Applicant to deal with the matter which was fixed for hearing. It is significant to note that the said last dismissal order passed by this Court specifically gives the details of earlier dismissal and which can be once again reiterated so as to see the conduct of the party and vigilance or otherwise to proceed further with the matter.

¶17

First dismissal was on 17^th June, 2005. It was restored and then again on 19^th January, 2006 again the matter was dismissed for default again on the same ground as none appeared for the Applicant and again on making the application, it was restored for the third time on 23^rd February, 2007 i.e. after lapse of one year and one month of the second dismissal. Again the matter was dismissed when again the smiler ground as the non appearance on behalf of the Applicant. For the fourth time, the matter was taken on 7^th January, 2008 when nobody was present and again it came to be dismissed. Intermediately, on the earlier dismissals and again the matters were taken on board, with prayers of restoration on behalf of the Applicant

¶18

¶19

for non availability of the Advocate or otherwise and the matters came to be restored. As such as nobody represented the Petitioner for earlier four occasions dismissals were passed by this Court. The very conduct throw light on as to in what manner such type of criminal applications are being viewed by the party who in fact challenged the filing of the Criminal case against him which is for the offence of section 8(1) read with section 64 (2) of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (herein after referred as FERA Act). Infact such a prolonged litigation brought before this Court, when the criminal case lodged against the present Applicant which is bearing No.28/CW/98, is of the year 1998.

¶20

During the arguments, the learned Advocate Shri.Zha for the Applicant put reliance on the authority (1981)2 SCC 788 in the case of Rafiq & Anr. V/s.Munshilal & Anr., and admitted that the contesting parties should not suffer for the lapses of their Advocate, an exparte order of dismissal can be again recalled, though there cannot be any dispute regarding such dictum still such type of latitude granted in favour of the Applicant cannot be taken as stretching to such an extent as to not having any end to such type of litigation. Moreover, what is challenged before this Court in dismissed Criminal Application No.1634 of 1998 purportedly to be under section 482 is quashing of the case and as such even after 11 years of prolonged pendency of the matter, which is under the FERA Act and involving

¶21

¶22

rather economic offence, there is no opening for such case to be proceeded when infact to be put to an end. In the opinion of this Court, such type of situation is not warranted and the latches shown on the part of the Applicant cannot be condoned and hence the present Application for restoration does not deserve to be entertained and allowed and accordingly it is disposed of as dismissed.

¶23

If any interim orders are still effective those shall come to

¶24

an end.

¶25

(A.R. JOSHI, J.)

¶26

Jairaj Vallabhdas Java v. the Chief Enforcement Officer and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jairaj Vallabhdas Java v. the Chief Enforcement Officer and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Naved Liyakat Khalife Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ashpaq Balbeg Mirza Vs Baswanteshwar Rural Non Agricultural Co-Op Society Ltd, and Anr.

Kundalik Govind Kamble and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Prakash M. Pai Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Balaram Dharam Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ashok Laxminarayan Khetan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.