RAVINDER KUMAR NAYAR Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An appeal under Sec. 630 of The companies Act was decided by the Addl. District Judge, Court No. 2, Meerut on 18.12.2006 in the absence of the applicant and his counsel, and the application under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act was dismissed, and the appeal was also dismissed, as being time barred.

(2.) The applicant has come to this Court under Sec. 482 Criminal Procedure Code and his contention is, that on particular date that is on 18.12.2006 an advocate of the Meerut Bar Association, Sri Chandra Prakash Sharma had died, and a condolence meeting was held in the bar association, in which it was decided, that all advocates would abstain from work that day, and that is why the applicant's counsel did not appear. According to the applicant, the court should have taken note of this circumstance and should not have proceeded to decide the matter, in absence of applicant's counsel.

(3.) According to High Court's circular the functioning of the Court cannot be suspended without an order of the District Judge, for closure of the Courts on the death of the member of the Bar Association. The courts had, therefore, to function and cases had to be taken up for decision. The resolution of Bar Association cannot be a substitute for the order of the District Judge. The mere fact that the Bar Association had passed the resolution that employees will abstain from work due to the death of one of their colleagues will not suffice in Law to stop the courts from functioning.