Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


M/S Steel Authority Of India Ltd. v. M/S Gaurav Pipes Pvt. Ltd. & Another - WRIT - C No. 18190 of 2003 [2004] RD-AH 296 (7 July 2004)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


Court No.37

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 18190 of  2003

M/s. Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. M/s. Gaurav Pipes Pvt. Ltd. and another.

Hon'ble R.K.Agrawal, J.

By means of the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the orders dated 12th March, 2003 and 26th March, 2003, passed by the learned XII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad, filed as annexures 2 and 3 to the writ petition and other consequential reliefs.

At the time of hearing, Sri Ravi Kant, learned Senior Counsel,  assisted by Sri Nitin Sharma, learned counsel, submitted that the Court below was not justified in modifying the decree passed by the trial Court while granting adjournment inasmuch as vide order dated 26th March, 2003 the Court below had directed that the petitioner who is the decree holder shall  not be entitled for the interest during the period for which the proceeding in the Court below are adjourned at his behest.

Sri Srinath Dwivedi, who has appeared for the respondent no.1, submitted that the petitioner is only interested in delaying the proceedings and, therefore, the Court below was justified in passing the order disentitling the petitioner from charging interest for the period during which it got the proceedings adjourned.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I find that even though by the impugned order the decree does not stand modified but the Court below was not justified in passing the order restraining the petitioner from charging the interest for the period for which the proceedings were adjourned at his behest. At the most it could impose cost for every adjournment.  Further, from the proceedings, it appears that the adjournment had been sought by the petitioner on a few occasions only and, therefore, the Court below was not justified in imposing such a heavy cost. In this view of the matter, the order dated 26th March, 2003 passed by the Court below in so far as it disentitles the petitioner from charging interest for the period during which the proceedings were adjourned at his behest is sought is set aside. However, the petitioner shall pay cost of Rs.5000/- to the respondent no.1. As the appeal is pending since the year 2000 in the interest of justice I  direct the Appellate Court to hear and decide the appeal within one month from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before it.  The Appellate Court shall not grant unnecessary adjournments to any parties.

The writ petition is disposed of.




Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.