This Court dismissed a writ petition challenging two interlocutory orders. The Court held that it is not open to the Court to dictate who shall lead evidence and allowed the petitioner to move the authority afresh regarding cross-examination rights. Interference was not warranted.
Petition dismissed with orders of competent authority standing.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
O. O. C. J.
WRIT PETITION NO.2040 OF 2009
Bhagwandas J. Laungani Vs.
S.M. Reddi and others
..Petitioner.
..Respondents.
Mr. Charanjeet Chandrapal for the Petitioner. None for the Respondents.
CORAM: DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.
3rd November, 2009.
P.C. :
Both the impugned orders dated 5th March, 2009 and 10th
August, 2009 are purely of an interlocutory nature and do not call for interference in proceedings in the exercise of the writ jurisdiction. By
the first order the competent authority disposed of an application of
the Petitioner which was to the effect that the Applicant may be called
upon to lead evidence in person and not through a Constituted Attorney. The competent authority held that it was not open to the Court to dictate to the Applicant as to who should lead evidence.
2
Obviously it is for the Applicant to decide as to who should step into the witness box. The consequences would ofcourse be a matter to be considered when the application comes up for final decision. By the second order the competent authority has held that the Petitioner has forfeited the right of cross examination. Insofar as this aspect is concerned, it would be open to the Petitioner to move the competent authority afresh if he is so advised. In any event, since both the orders are of an interlocutory nature, no interference by this Court is
warranted. The Petition is dismissed.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere under writ jurisdiction with interlocutory orders regarding the applicant leading evidence and the forfeiture of cross-examination rights.
Whether the competent authority has the right to decide who shall lead evidence in person or through an attorney.
Bhagwandas J. Laungani
S.M. Reddi
Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
