Allowed

Prabhakar S/O Baburao Dadmal v. State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O. Gadchiroli and Another

Bombay HC27 Jun 2016APPP/780/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed applications to restore dismissed criminal applications despite counsel's negligence. Ordered payment of Rs. 15,000 to High Court Bar Library to be personally borne by the advocate, not the applicant.

What did the court decide?

Applications allowed subject to conditional to the advocate to the High Court Bar Library from his own purse and not from the applicant, and the applicant shall not pay cost.

Prabhakar S/O Baburao Dadmal Vs State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY: NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Criminal Application [APPP] No. 780 of 2016 IN Criminal Application [APPP] No. 779 of 2016 IN Criminal Application [APPP] No. 477 of 2016 IN

¶3

Criminal Application [APL] No. 15 of 2016 [Prabhakar Baburao Dadmal Vs. State of Mah. & another]

¶4

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders.

¶5

Mr. V.K. Gulhane, Adv., for the Applicant. Mr. V.A. Thakre, APP for respondent no.1.

¶6

CORAM : B. R. GAVAI AND V.M. DESHPANDE, JJ.

¶7

DATE : 27th June, 2016

¶8

Criminal Application No. 780 of 2016 is for condonation of delay in moving an application for restoration of Criminal Application No. 477 of 2016, while the Criminal Application No. 779 of 2016 is for setting aside the order dated 20th April, 2016 and for restoration of Criminal Application No. 477 of 2016.

¶9

The perusal of the record would reveal that the counsel for the applicant was consistently negligent in prosecuting the present proceedings.

¶10

¶11

The perusal of the order dated 15th March, 2016 would reveal that a conditional order was passed to the effect that if the applicant fails to remove office objection within a week, the application shall stand dismissed in default.

¶12

The perusal of the order dated 12th April, 2016 would reveal that since the applicant failed to remove office objections, the Criminal Application stood disposed of automatically and as such Criminal Application No. 477 of 2016 was filed for restoration of main application. When the matter was listed on 12th April, 2016, the counsel did not appear before the Court, though it was called out twice. However, in order to give one more opportunity, the matter was directed to be listed after one week in the caption of “dismissal”.

¶13

Again, when the matter was listed on 20th April, 2016, none appeared. As such, left with no other alternative, we dismissed the application for want of prosecution.

¶14

Now, the aforesaid two applications are filed, contending therein that the counsel for the applicant was out of India and as such the aforesaid orders came to be passed. We make it clear that we

¶15

¶16

would very well be justified in rejecting the applications on account of total negligent approach on the part of counsel for the applicant.

¶17

However, it is a settled law that for lapses on the part of counsel, the litigant should not suffer. In that view of the matter, we are inclined to allow the applications rather than rejecting the same, but subject to payment of cost of Rs.15,000-00 [rupees fifteen thousand only] to be made by the counsel from his own purse, to the High Court Bar Library.

¶18

We make it clear that since we are ordering payment of cost on account of negligence of the Adv., for the applicant, the same shall be personally paid by the lawyer concerned and it is further made clear that the applicant shall not pay the cost. The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the applicant, and in particular the part of this order about payment of cost by the Advocate for the applicant and not the applicant, in Marathi, so that he has no confusion about the orders passed by this Court.

¶19

Judge Judge

¶20

| hedau |

¶21

Prabhakar S/O Baburao Dadmal v. State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O. Gadchiroli and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prabhakar S/O Baburao Dadmal v. State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O. Gadchiroli and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mamta Jayendra Morey Vs Jayendra Moreshwarrao Morey

Harising S/O Pura Jadhao Vs the Collector, Yavatmal Thr. L.a.O., Yavatmal and 2 Others

Sanjay Manohar Dhole Vs the State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O. Karanja, Wardha

Vijendrakumar S/O Himmatrao Dhondge Vs the State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O. P.S. Mehkar, Buldhana and Another

Prabhakar S/O Baburao Dadmal Vs State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O. Gadchiroli and Another

Yog S/O Navalkumar Bhoot Vs Ms. Parul D/O Ashok Agrawal and Others