SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1923 Supreme(Mad) 21

WALLACE
Lakshiminarayana – Appellant
Versus
The Standard Oil Company Of New – Respondent


JUDGMENT

1. This is another illustration of what happens when parties do not appear at the time they ought to appear through their own fault or the fault of their legal advisers. A strong case for the plaintiff was put before the learned Judge. Defendants 2 and 3 did not appear owing to a mistake of their Vakil and owing partly to their not having received a telegram which had been sent by their Vakil in such time that, if it had been received in the normal course, he would have got them here on the second day of the hearing. Under those circumstances, in my Judgment, it is not right that they should be penalised to the extent of the case being decided against them without their being heard. It is contrary to principles of natural justice that cases should be decided on the hearing of one side only if the other side is ready and willing to be heard. In such cases, as a rule, adequate punishment is to be found in the remedy of costs, which not only penalises the party in default but, theoretically at any rate, indemnifies the other party from the expense which he has been put to by reason of that default. In these circumstances, in this case, there must be an order setting aside the


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top