Case Note & Summary
This is an interim order in a civil suit pending before the Bombay High Court. The plaintiff, Zee Interactive Learning Systems Ltd., filed Suit No. 300 of 2005 along with Notice of Motion No. 313 of 2005 against defendants Chanda N. Dawda and another. On 13th April 2005, the court perused an earlier order dated 16th March 2005. A representative of the High Court Legal Services Committee appeared and informed the court that the advocate previously suggested by the committee to represent the defendant had declined to accept the assignment. Consequently, the committee sought time to appoint another advocate for the defendant. The court, noting the need for legal representation for the defendant, adjourned the matter to 26th April 2005 to allow the committee to make a fresh appointment. No other substantive issues were addressed in this brief procedural order.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Legal Aid - Appointment of Advocate - The court adjourned the matter to enable the High Court Legal Services Committee to appoint another advocate for the defendant after the previously suggested advocate declined to act. (Para 1)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the court should adjourn proceedings to allow the High Court Legal Services Committee to appoint another advocate for the defendant after the previously suggested advocate declined.
Final Decision
The court adjourned the matter to 26th April 2005 to enable the High Court Legal Services Committee to appoint another advocate for the defendant.
Law Points
- Legal aid
- adjournment for appointment of counsel
Case Details
2005 LawText (BOM) (04) 161
Notice of Motion No. 313 of 2005 in Suit No. 300 of 2005
Mr. S. Rajeshwar i/b Lega Apex for the plaintiff; Defendants present in person; Mrs. Uppadhye, Legal Aid representative present
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil suit with notice of motion
Remedy Sought
Adjournment to allow appointment of another legal aid advocate for the defendant
Filing Reason
The previously suggested legal aid advocate declined to represent the defendant
Previous Decisions
Order dated 16th March 2005 was perused
Issues
Whether the court should adjourn the matter to allow the High Court Legal Services Committee to appoint another advocate for the defendant.
Submissions/Arguments
Representative of High Court Legal Services Committee stated that the previous advocate declined to act and sought to appoint another advocate.
Ratio Decidendi
The court adjourned the proceedings to facilitate the appointment of legal aid counsel for the defendant, ensuring the defendant's right to legal representation.
Judgment Excerpts
Representative of the High Court Legal Services Committee is present in the Court and states that the previous Advocate which was suggested to be appointed by committee for representing the defendant has declined to act as such and therefore, the committee wants to appoint another Advocate for the defendant. Hence, adjourned to 26th April 2005.
Procedural History
The court perused an order dated 16th March 2005. On 13th April 2005, the High Court Legal Services Committee informed the court that the previously suggested advocate declined to act, and the court adjourned the matter to 26th April 2005 for appointment of another advocate.
