- LATEST
- WEBSTORY
- TRENDING
AHMEDABAD
Rap for lawyer who cited seniority to shrug off case
When the case was called out for hearing, a colleague of the recently designated "senior advocate" sought more time, but the court turned down the request
Updated : Sep 09, 2019, 05:25 AM IST
 "Gujarat High Court")
TRENDING NOW
)
India vs Australia Live Streaming: When and where to watch first Test of Border-Gavaskar Trophy on TV and online
)
Allu Arjun, Rashmika Mandanna's Pushpa 2 has already earned Rs 1000 crore before its release, here's how
)
Hinduja Group firm gets key approval for acquisition of Anil Ambani's debt-ridden Reliance Capital
)
Gandii Baat, XXX actress Aabha Paul sets Instagram on fire with hot photos
)
Amid divorce rumours with Aishwarya Rai, Abhishek Bachchan tells Amitabh Bachchan: 'I hope people don't...'
)
7 times XXX, Gandii Baat actress Aabha Paul crashed the internet by flaunting her sexy curves
)
After separation from ex-wife Saira Banu, AR Rahman makes major announcement: 'I am deeply grateful to...'
)
Shweta Tiwari's wedding photos with Bigg Boss 13 contestant Vishal Aditya Singh go viral, here's the truth behind them
)
Mukesh Ambani's Jio to get tough competition from BSNL, plan provides unlimited benefits for less than Rs...
)
Meet Mathira Khan, Pakistani influencer whose private video leaked after Minahil Malik, Imsha Rehman
)
'Good to be back': After breaking up with Malaika Arora, Arjun Kapoor reunites with his 'partner-in-crime after ages'
)
Amid Aishwarya Rai-Abhishek Bachchan divorce rumours, Jaya Bachchan says 'not my daughter' in viral video
)
AR Rahman, Saira Banu's daughter Raheema shares cryptic note after parents' divorce: 'Your lord is going to...'
)
After breakup with Malaika Arora, Arjun Kapoor dedicates his new tattoo to this special person in his life
)
'It's Abhishek, Aishwarya': Netizens react after celeb divorce lawyer says star couple is facing 'breakdown in marriage'
The Gujarat High Court has criticised a lawyer for not assisting the court in disposing a 25-year-old appeal filed by the state-run Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (GSRTC). The lawyer, who was the advocate on record for GSRTC in the case, had informed the court that he was now a "senior advocate" and would therefore be unable to appear in the matter.
When the case was called out for hearing, a colleague of the recently designated "senior advocate" sought more time, but the court turned down the request. When the case was called out for a second time, the court was told that since the GSRTC advocate had been designated a "senior advocate", it would not be possible for him to appear in the case or assist the court.
This irked the bench of acting Chief Justice AS Dave which straightaway dismissed the case for "want of prosecution". It criticised the senior advocate, noting that his argument for not assisting the court was meritless.
"Even after the advocate on record is designated as a senior advocate, he would render proper assistance to the court about the merit of the subject matter. But no such assistance is rendered. In view of the constant non-appearance, this court is left with no option but to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution," Justice Dave stated in his order.
The appeal under the Land Acquisition Act was filed in June 1993. The court admitted the matter in August 1994. It was not taken up for hearing until 2012. In all, the case was listed for hearing 99 times since 1994, but no effective hearing took place.
The matter kept getting adjourned for some or the other reason, including non-appearance of lawyers and GSRTC counsels seeking time.
Justice Dave was so peeved by the non-appearance of the lawyers in the case that in his order dismissing the case, he has enumerated all the occasions since March 2014 when the hearing of the case could not be taken up due to absence of lawyers.
The high court administration is hellbent on reducing the growing burden of pendency of cases, especially very old ones, and has requested the bar to cooperate in these matters. It has also notified the lawyers that cases older than five years would not be adjourned ordinarily.
