The Calcutta High Court has reaffirmed that repeated non-appearance by appellants, even after being granted a last opportunity, warrants dismissal of appeals for default. The judgment upholds existing precedent on procedural consequence, serving as binding authority for similar default scenarios, particularly in civil appellate matters.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | SA/915/1965 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 Bench |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority within Calcutta High Court on dismissal for procedural default |
| Type of Law | Civil Procedure |
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
|
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within the Calcutta High Court’s jurisdiction |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reiterates that repeated failure to appear, even after specific warning and a final opportunity, justifies dismissal of civil appeals for default.
- Interim orders attached to the appeal stand automatically vacated upon such dismissal.
- No costs are necessarily imposed in such procedural dismissals, unless the Court directs otherwise.
- Lawyers must ensure vigilant attendance after being granted a “last chance” to avoid dismissal for default.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court recorded the non-appearance of parties on three consecutive hearing dates.
- Explicitly referred to its prior order granting a “last chance” to the appellants to appear and argue their cases.
- Upon continued absence, the Court stated there was no option but to dismiss the matters for default.
- Ordered that all interim orders shall stand vacated.
- Made no order as to costs.
- No substantive legal issues or merits were addressed; the dismissal was purely on procedural grounds.
Arguments by the Parties
None recorded; the judgment notes that no parties appeared on any of the relevant hearing dates.
Factual Background
Several appeals filed by Budge Budge Amalgamated Mills Limited were scheduled for hearing before the Calcutta High Court. On the last three listed dates (September 18, 2025; October 24, 2025; and October 31, 2025), neither the appellants nor respondents appeared. The Court had explicitly granted a final opportunity to the appellants on October 24, 2025. Persistent non-appearance led to the dismissal.
Statutory Analysis
The judgment does not discuss or interpret any statutory provisions. The order is confined to procedural action (dismissal for default) owing to non-prosecution.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No concurring or dissenting opinions are present in this single-judge order.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural requirements or guidelines were laid down. The judgment applies settled procedure regarding dismissal for default.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The decision affirms existing procedural precedent on dismissing matters for non-prosecution after fair opportunity.