Adjournment should not be used to cause delay

The Bombay High Court in the case of CCE versus Techno Economic Services Pvt Ltd- 2010(255)ELT526(Bom) observed that in spite of engaging multiple advocates, adjournments are sought, which result in payment of heavy professional charges to the advocates appearing for the department

My experience in adjudicating cases, conducting litigations and appearing in courts as a witness for the past several decades, has led me to the conclusion that adjournments asked for and given by courts, tribunals and departmental adjudicators is a potent weapon to manufacture delays. As late as on May 13, 2013, the Supreme Court expressed "anguish, agony and concern" over adjournment granted by a Punjab Trial Court in a bride burning case, which stretched the process of examination of witnesses to more than two years. In spite of the Supreme Court strictures on many occasions before, against granting many adjournments, the malady is still rampant.

Amongst the reasons for manufacturing delays, the one which is the star reason is the propensity of those in the legal profession to earn heavy professional fees. The anecdote about a lawyer telling his client that he will fight the case till the last penny of his client is not too wrong.

The Bombay High Court in the case of CCE vs. Techno Economic Services Pvt. Ltd. - 2010(255)ELT526(Bom,) observed that in spite of engaging multiple advocates, adjournments are sought, which result in payment of heavy professional charges to the advocates appearing for the department.

Although this has been said in the context of advocates engaged for Revenue, the same is also true for private petitioners. I know several prosecution cases going on for more than 35 years mostly because of adjournments. I also know cases not decided after thirty three adjournments. Recently, the Supreme Court in a judgement dated 29.1.13 in the case of Noor Mohammed vs. Jethanand highlighted the havoc of delay caused by adjournment. The judgement ended with a request with the Chief Justices of High Courts to evolve a mechanism to avoid such unjustified delay to speed up the course of litigation.

The oft-repeated argument in favour of adjournment asked for is that it is a natural justice that has to be done by hearing them. What is not understood is that repeatedly asking for adjournment is not really for natural justice but for deliberately delaying the case.

In revenue cases, where the goods have been released or are not at stake, the importers or manufacturers simply do not want to turn up for hearing, knowing fully well that ultimately they may have to pay extra duty or penalty.

In such cases they cannot be allowed to take adjournment by invoking the plea of natural justice.

The Madras High Court observed in the case of Unit Traders vs. Commissioner of Customs - 2012(281) ELT659 (Mad.) that when there is a deliberate absence on the date of hearings the plea of denying natural justice is not admissible.

One of the most interesting arguments I encountered when I appeared as a witness for the prosecution in a CBI case where I had sanctioned the prosecution of a junior officer who had been found with property in excess of his known source of income. After a few minutes of cross-examination, the lawyer told the judge that there was a procession in the city and he wanted to exercise his democratic right to join the procession for which he wanted adjournment of the proceedings. The adjournment was readily granted.

I have appeared eight times in one case, seven times in another case (after retirement) and four times in another case (after retirement).

In the case where I appeared four times, I must say that there was no undue adjournment given by the court and it was forced by the accused.

If the court is strict, as in this case, the number of adjournments can be brought down. If the court orders the accused to be arrested and brought to the court next time, as in this case, the accused will realise the no-nonsense attitude of the court and will abide by the directions next time.

The conclusion which is based on my experience over a long period of time is that once the adjudicator or the tribunal or court is strict about not giving undue adjournment, the petitioners on both sides will take the matter seriously and not ask for frivolous adjournments. This is the only way to avoid the havoc caused by adjournments that is now taking place.
smukher2000@yahoo.com