Case BriefsHigh Courts

Madras High Court: The Bench of T. Ravindran, J. set aside the order of Deputy Commissioner of Labour whereby he had set aside the earlier order for compensation passed ex-parte in favour of the petitioner herein.

Petitioner suffered injuries at his workplace and sought compensation from the respondent. The Deputy Commissioner, by an ex-parte order, awarded him a compensation of Rs 2,39,380. The respondent contended that it was not able to appear before the Authority due to communication gap and wrong noting of dates of hearing. The Deputy Commissioner allowed the application of respondent ad set aside it earlier order. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed the present civil revision petition.

After perusing the entire record, the High Court found that the Deputy Commissioner did not properly appreciate petitioner’s submission that the earlier order was not an ex-parte order but was one passed on merits. Furthermore, the respondent did not place nay evidence to substantiate the cause of non-appearance pleaded by it. The very basis of the cause projected by the respondent was not established in any manner. The Court held that in such case, the Deputy Commissioner should not have entertained the respondent’s application. In such and other view of the matter, the petition was allowed and the impugned order was set aside. [S. Dhanasekaran v. Sree Nithyakalyani Textile Ltd., 2018 SCC OnLine Mad 4910, Order dated 18-12-2018]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Bombay High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of A.M. Badar, J. allowed an appeal filed against the order of the trial court whereby the appellant’s complaint against the respondent-accused was dismissed for want of prosecution.

The appellant had lodged a complaint against the respondent alleging the commission of offences punishable under Sections 323, 337, 341, 352, 504 and 506 IPC. The trial court recorded the verification statement of the appellant. Similar statement of one eye-witness was also recorded. Subsequently, the trial court issued process for offences punishable under Sections 323, 504 and 506 IPC against the respondent. When the matter was posted for recording of appellant’s evidence, he did not appear for three consecutive dates. The respondent moved an application under Section 256 CrPC which was allowed by the trial court and therefore the complaint was dismissed for want of prosecution. This order of the trial court was impugned in the instant appeal.

The High Court perused the record and considered the submissions made by the parties. Although the counsel for the respondent-accused vehemently opposed; however, the Court was inclined to remand the matter back to trial court for a decision on merits. It was observed that primary function of the Court is to adjudicate the dispute on its own merit rather adhering to technicalities of law. On perusal of the roznama, the High Court was satisfied that the appellant was diligent in prosecuting his case. The reason stated for non-appearance was stated to be communication gap between the appellant and his advocate, which found favour with the Court. Hence, the order impugned was set aside and the complaint was restored to the file of the trial court for deciding the same in accordance with law. [Ambaji Ganu Gurav v. Sachin Chandrakant Narkar, 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 2772, dated 21-08-2018]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Chhattisgarh High Court: In a first appeal referred to the Single Judge Bench comprising of Sharad Kumar Gupta, J., the impugned judgment and decree in regard to Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was dismissed.

Appellant had filed a divorce petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 which was dismissed by the trial court without recording relevant evidence. The appellant claimed that his marriage was solemnized in the year 1992 in accordance with Hindu rites and rituals and for about 17 years ago the respondent had performed second marriage and the appellant himself had performed second marriage. Though the respondent stated that her marriage was not solemnized with the appellant and neither did she perform second marriage. Therefore, observing the said facts of the case, the trial court had dismissed the divorce petition, against which the appellant had preferred this appeal.

The High Court, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, concluded that the trial court had failed in recording the evidence in proper perspective and the appellant’s evidence was unrebutted. Moreover, the Court also observed that, the trial court by not paying any heed to the provisions of Section 23(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 which talks about “making every endeavour to bring about reconciliation between the parties” and pronouncing their decision ex parte against the respondent due to non-appearance and not framing issues regarding the marriage and most importantly the pleadings in which the respondent states that she is married wife of the appellant under Section 24 of the Act, the High Court on the basis of this remitted the case to the trial court with directions to proceed with the suit in accordance of law and procedure. [Ramnarayan v. Gayatri, 2018 SCC OnLine chh 488, order dated 08-05-2018]