Research › Browse › Judgment

Supreme Court of India · body

2014 DIGILAW 910 (SC)

Syed Gulzar Hussain v. Dewan Syed Ale Rasul Ali Khan

2014-09-01

DIPAK MISRA, VIKRAMAJIT SEN

body2014
ORDER : In the course of hearing, Mr. Kapil Sibal, learned senior counsel has produced a copy of the order dated 19.08.2014 passed in S.B. Civil Misc. Application No. 90/2014 in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 4379/2012. The learned Single Judge, who has passed the order, has commenced the order with the following sentence: "None of the Advocates for the parties is present due to the strike call given by the Bar Association." On a query being made, Mr. Sushil Kumar Jain, learned senior counsel appearing along with Mr. Kapil Sibal, submitted that strike is continuing for approximately last two months. We are at loss to understand why the strike is continuing as a result of which the Court is not assisted by the counsel for the parties. It has come to the notice of this Court that when the High Court passes an order without rendition of assistance by the learned counsel for the parties, submissions otherwise available or supposed to be tenable, as per the perception of the learned counsel appearing before this Court, have not been taken note of by the High Court or the subordinate Court. When queries are made, why these submissions were not made, they also express their inability. 2. Regard being made to the aforesaid situation, we issue notice to the Bar Council of India, State Bar Council of Rajasthan and High Court Bar Association, Jaipur. 3. The Secretary General is directed to issue notice to the said authorities so that they can appear before this Court through their counsel on 09.09.2014. List on 09.09.2014 along with SLP(C) D. No.27971/14.