TAHIL RAM ISSARDAS SADARANGANI Vs. RAMCHAND ISSARDAS SADARANGANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - This appeal has arisen from the order of the High Court dated March 15, 1974 dismissing in default the petition filed by the appellant-petitioner to set aside an award given in the arbitration proceedings. The application for restoration of the petition was also dismissed by the High Court on April 24, 1974. Further appeal filed by the appellants was dismissed in limine by a Division Bench of the High Court by its order dated August 5, 1974.

(2.) Appellants' petition for setting aside the award came for hearing before Vimadalal, J. of the Bombay High Court on March 15, 1974. Mr. N. V. Adhia, Advocate appeared before the Learned Judge on behalf of the petitioner. It is no doubt correct that on the original side of the High Court, an advocate, at the relevant time had to appear through an attorney or a firm of attorneys. It seems that Mr. Adhia had directly sought instructions from the petitioners and made appearance before the Court. When the case reached for hearing on March 15, 1974 Mr. Adhia appeared for the petitioners and stated that he had no instructions in the matter although he had informed the petitioners regarding the date of hearing of the petition. He requested for adjournment which was refused. Thereafter, Mr. Adhia was allowed to withdraw his appearance and since neither any counsel nor the petitioners in person were present the petition was dismissed in default. The application for restoration was also dismissed by the learned Judge vide order dated April 24, 1974. While dismissing the said application, Learned Judge observed as under :-

(3.) We are, therefore, of the view that the Learned Judge was justified in expressing his anguish at the impunity with which the legal ethics are side-lined by some members of the profession.