1996(7) Supreme 470
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.M. Ahmadi, C.J.I. & Sujata V. Manohar, J.
Inder Mani & Ors. -Appellants
versus
Mathehwari Prasad & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 12982 of 1996
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 10106 of 1996)
Decided on 10-10-1996
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : R.D. Upadhyay, Advocate.
For the Respondents : D.K. Garg and M.C. Dhingra, Advocates.
JUDGMENT
Mrs. Sujata V. Manohar, J.-Leave granted.
2. This appeal by special leave arises from a judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court dated 22.12.1995 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 7013 of 1980. By the said judgment the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition filed by the first respondent ex parte. On 22.12.1995, the learned advocate who appeared for the appellants had made an application supported by affidavit dated 22.12.1995 asking for an adjournment for reasons stated in the affidavit. This application was not granted. The learned advocate thereafter did not appear in the case and the impugned judgment has been passed ex-parte. In view of certain averments made in the special leave petition relating to what transpired in the Court of the learned Single Judge on 19.12.1995, 21.12.1995 and 22.12.1995 we directed the Registrar of the Allahabad High Court to place before us a status report in this behalf so that we could appreciate and deal with the averments. The Registrar of the Allahabad High Court has filed an affidavit before us along with the daily cause lists for 19.12.1995, 21.12.1995 and 22.12.1995 as also the order-sheets relating to the said writ petition.
3. On 19.12.1995 the writ petition was listed before Hon ble Mr. Justice A.P. Singh in Court No. 28. The order passed by him on 19th of December, 1995 is to the effect that an illness slip has been received from counsel for the appellants (respondents before the High Court) although there are other counsel also listed as representing the appellants. It goes on to say: "the case is passed over but as requested by the learned counsel for the peti-tioners, it will be taken up on 21.12.1995 on which date it shall not be adjourned on any ground. Learned counsel for the petitioners may inform the learned counsel for the respondents that the case will be taken up on 21.12.1995."
4. In view of this order, the writ petition was placed in Court No. 28 before the learned Single Judge on 21.12.1995 as an unlisted case. The Daily Cause List for 21.12.1995 does not list this writ petition before the learned Judge. The order passed on 21.12.1995 by the learned Single Judge is as follows :
"Shri Lalji Pandey learned counsel for the respondents has stated that he is not aware of the fact that the case is posted for today. He prays that the case may be put up tomorrow so that he may prepare the case. Put up tomorrow (22.12.1995) at 10.00 a.m."
5. It is the case of learned advocate for the appellants that as he came out of the court on 21.12.1995 he was threatened by an unknown person and told not to appear in the case. He claims to have mentioned this to the learned Single Judge on the same day. He also claims to have mentioned this incident before the Hon ble the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court. However, there is no material on record on the action taken, if any.
6. On 22.12.1995 the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court in the morning reconstituted the Division Bench presided over by Mr. Justice V.N. Khare (as he then was) with Mr. Justice A.P. Singh. In the Daily Cause List the constitution of this Division Bench was shown as originally constituted i.e. Hon ble Mr. Justice V.N. Khare and Hon ble Mr. Justice Syed Rafat Alam. The Chief Justice assigned other work of Court Room No. 36 to Justice Rafat Alam when he reconstituted the Division Bench. On such reconstitution both the learned Judges were informed about the arrangements made by Hon ble the Chief Justice. However, Justice A.P. Singh did not sit on the Division Bench with Justice V.N. Khare. When Justice A.P. Singh did not join the Division Bench, the Hon ble the Chief Justice was apprised of the situation. He thereupon directed that Justice Aloke Chakrabarti be requested to join Justice V.N. Khare and the Division Bench was constituted accordingly. Mr. Justice A.P. Singh sat singly in Court Room No. 28. In the Daily Cause List of the learned Judge for 22.12.1995 also the sai
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.