High Court lays down zero-tolerance policy over adjournments. Threatens to dismiss appeals, hear them ex-parte or and/or impose costs if counsel are not prepared

Thermax Babcock & Wilcox Ltd vs. CIT (Bombay High Court)

(i) We have noted that the Final Hearing Board consists of all Appeals of 2002. First two matters have been adjourned by us only because the Department or the Advocate for Appellant sought accommodation. They did not have either papers or were not ready with the case. Such state of affairs will not be tolerated hereafter. In the event, the Counsel engaged by the Department is absent without a justifiable or reasonable cause, we will invariably impose costs and to be paid by the Counsel personally. Equally, we would proceed in his absence. In the event, the Appellant or his Advocate is absent, we will proceed to dismiss the Appeal for non prosecution. Thereafter, no application for restoration of the Appeal will be considered unless the Appellant makes out a sufficient cause for absence