Delhi High Court
Texmaco Ltd. vs State (Delhi Admn.) And Jai ... on 14 August, 2007
Author: S N Dhingra
Bench: S N Dhingra
ORDER
Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.
1. These bunch of appeals have been preferred against the order dated 14.7.2005 whereby the learned ACMM dismissed the complaint of the complainant and acquitted the accused persons since the complainant and his counsel did not appear at 10 a.m. when the case was called. Learned ACMM observed that he had fixed the case for 10 a.m. but neither party was present and counsel were not adhering to the Court time generally lawyer do not appear before 11.30 a.m. The case was very old and it was made clear to the parties that the case shall be taken up at right 10 a.m., despite that parties did not appear.
2. A persual of record would show that the complaints were filed by the appellant company under Section 630 of the Companies Act, a summary trial case, and the appellants have been fighting the case for the last 17 years. The respondent/accused employee of the appellant, have been in illegal and unauthorised occupation of the premises allotted by the appellant, for the last 21 years without paying any charges.
3. I consider that it was not proper for the learned ACMM to dismiss the complaint right at 10 a.m. This Court in Continental Papers Ltd. v. Darshan Print Pack (P) Ltd. 2003 (102) DLT 18 had observed as under:
Gone are the days when one used to start 15 minutes or half an hour from the house for reaching the Court or destination. We are living in a city which has chaotic traffic and nightmarish jams and snarling movement of vehicles. Almost every day newspapers are teemed with chaotic traffic conditions in some or the other part of the city. Traffic indiscipline and the lack of control by the authorities over the movement of vehicles in orderly manner is the order of the day. One is not sure when he will reach his destination and when will he be caught by surprise on his way to have long and winding diversions.
The Court cannot be oblivious of these ground realities, and therefore, before packing up the case of a party summarily due to non-appearance of a party or his counsel, Court is expected to wait till late hours.
4. This Court has also observed in several other cases that the dismissal of the complaint was not the only course adopted by the MM in case of non-appearance of the complaint and the MM has an alternative discretion available which should be exercised judicially.
5. In the present case, learned ACMM should have considered the fact the accused was in unauthorised occupation of the premises for 21 years and the complaint under Section 630 of the Act which should have been disposed of summarily, was still pending. There may be default of the complainant that he did not appear right at 10 a.m. but at least the complainant should have been awaited for some time or the Court should have adopted other option available to it of adjourning the case and imposing some costs.
6. For the reasons stated above, I allow all these appeals. The parties are directed to appear before the ACMM, Karkardooma on 24.8.2007.
