Law Insider India

Legal News, Current Trends and Legal Insight | Supreme Court of India and High Courts

[Landmark Judgement] Amit Mines (P) Ltd. V. Maithan Alloys Ltd. (2023)

1 min read
Landmark Judgment Law Insider (1)

Published on: February 4, 2024 at 00:20 IST

Court: High Court of Calcutta

Citation: Amit Mines (P) Ltd. v. Maithan Alloys Ltd. (2023)

Honourable High Court of Calcutta has held that if a party does not appears before the Court Commissioner then in such scenario the Court Commissioner can proceed Ex-Parte. It is held that Commissioner are vested with the powers under the provision of Order XXVI Rule 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to proceed Ex-Parte against an erring party who does not appears before the commissioner for the due process of law.

12. In view of the circumstances as discussed hereinabove and keeping in mind the mandate of the provisions of Order 26 Rule 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it appears to this Court that the impugned order is not sustainable in Law. However considering the entire scenario as discussed in the impugned order, this Court is not in agreement with the Learned Trial Court that the defendant and/or his Learned Advocate appearing in the trial Court are no way responsible for their absence during the holding of Commission by the accounts commissioner. This Court has every reason to believe that the defendant absented himself in the process of commission either by refusing to take notice of commission or by otherwise with an intention to drag the proceedings as pending before the Learned Trial Court.

Drafted By Abhijit Mishra