The Calcutta High Court reiterates that persistent non-appearance by the appellant, despite repeated opportunities, mandates dismissal of second appeals for default. This order follows established procedure and upholds the precedent regarding consequences of parties’ inaction, reinforcing binding procedural standards for all subordinate courts in West Bengal.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | SA/915/1965 of BUDGE BUDGE AMALGAMATED MILLS LIMITED Vs SATYA BADI |
| CNR | WBCHCA0002711965 |
| Date of Registration | 25-08-1964 |
| Decision Date | 31-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE JUSTICE SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA |
| Court | Calcutta High Court |
| Bench | Single Judge Bench |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts within Calcutta High Court jurisdiction for matters concerning procedural dismissal for default |
| Type of Law | Procedural Law |
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
|
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within the Calcutta High Court’s jurisdiction |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts on procedural aspects of appeals |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reiterates that repeated non-appearance, even after specific last opportunities, will lead to dismissal of second appeals for default.
- Emphasizes the importance of diligence and timely appearance by counsel for appellants.
- Confirms that such dismissals may occur without any order as to costs and all interim orders stand vacated automatically.
- Lawyers representing appellants in appellate matters should monitor hearing dates and court instructions to avoid procedural dismissal.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court noted the absence of any appearance from either party on the scheduled date of hearing.
- Historical non-appearance on two previous dates (September 18, 2025 and October 24, 2025) was recorded.
- The Court highlighted that a specific last chance had been given to the appellant to argue the appeals, which was not availed.
- Based on continued non-representation, the Court reasoned that no alternative remained but dismissal for default, following procedural norms.
- Interim orders, if present, were expressly vacated.
- No costs were imposed.
Arguments by the Parties
No submissions were made by either the appellant or the respondent, as none appeared for the parties at the time of hearing or on previous dates set by the Court.
Factual Background
The matters pertained to a set of second appeals filed by Budge Budge Amalgamated Mills Limited against various respondents. Despite being scheduled for hearing on multiple occasions (September 18, 2025 and October 24, 2025), neither party appeared before the Court. A final opportunity to the appellant for arguing the case was provided but not availed. On the current date, absence continued, which led the Court to dismiss all listed appeals for default.
Statutory Analysis
The judgment centers on procedural law, particularly the power of the appellate court to dismiss an appeal for default owing to parties’ non-appearance. No specific statutory provision is cited or interpreted in the judgment; the Court proceeds on established procedural principles that permit such dismissal when parties fail to prosecute their appeals.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions were recorded or noted in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural rules or innovations were introduced. The Court followed existing procedure regarding dismissal for default after affording a last opportunity.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Affirms the power to dismiss for default as per existing procedural norms.