Dismissed

Nagraj Sudam Shinde v. the State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Rla, Law and Judiciary Dept and Anr.

Bombay HC15 Oct 2016WP/1022/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition filed by a petitioner who had engaged an advocate, the petitioner requested to argue the case personally. The High Court refused to countenance the request, noting the petitioner had sufficient prior opportunities and the advocate was not instructed, dismissing the petition for want of prosecution.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed for want of prosecution.

Nagraj Sudam Shinde Vs the State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

ASWP1022.14.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 1022 OF 2014

¶4

Nagraj Sudam Shinde … Petitioner Vs 1. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ... Respondents

¶5

Mr. Priyal G. Sarda for the Petitioner.

¶6

Ms. Sushma Bhende, AGP, for the Respondent No.1.

¶7

Ms. Leena Patil for the Respondent No.2.

¶8

CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & B.P. COLABAWALLA, JJ.

¶9

SATURDAY, 15TH OCTOBER, 2016

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

1 . On last several occasions, we waited for the petitioner's

¶12

advocate to argue this case. It was stated that Mr. Sarda has

¶13

been engaged by the petitioner to argue the case.

¶14

2 . On the earlier occasion, the matter appeared and none

¶15

was present. Meaning thereby, Mr. Sarda or the petitioner. We

¶16

adjourned the matter. Thereafter the reply affidavit has also been filed. After the reply affidavit was filed, on the earlier

¶17

occasion and we perused it with the assistance of the learned

¶18

SRP 1/2

¶19

ASWP1022.14.doc

¶20

advocate for respondent No.2, we found that Mr. Sarda was in some difficulty. Once again, we accommodated and adjourned the matter.

¶21

3 . Today, when the matter was placed for passing orders, Mr. Sarda states that the petitioner does not wish to continue with him as an advocate. The petitioner's wish and desire is that he would personally appear in the Court and argue this case.

¶22

4 . We do not countenance such requests, especially when the petitioner has engaged an advocate, namely, Mr. Sarda and we were willing to hear him. It is unfortunate that the petitioner conveys through Mr. Sarda his inability to argue the case today. To our mind, the petitioner had sufficient opportunities to argue his case, either in person or through an advocate. Since the petitioner is absent and Mr. Sarda has not been instructed to argue the writ petition, we dismiss it for want of prosecution.

¶23

B.P. COLABAWALLA, J. S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.

¶24

SRP 2/2

Nagraj Sudam Shinde v. the State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Rla, Law and Judiciary Dept and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nagraj Sudam Shinde v. the State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Rla, Law and Judiciary Dept and Anr.

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

Shri. Vithal Waman Shelke Vs the High Court of Bombay through Registrar General and Anr.

Supreme Telecommunication Ltd. and 3 Ors. Vs Canara Bank and 2 Ors.

Shalimar Exhibitors and Anr. Vs the Senior Inspector of Police and 5 Ors.

Vasantrao Dada Patil Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited and Anr. Vs Maharashtra State Co-Op. Bank Limited and Ors.

The Commissioner of Central Excise City-v, Mumbai Vs La Preenca Ind. P. Ltd. and Anr.

The Commissioner of Cetral Excise-Thane-I Vs M/S Nicholas Piramal Ltd.