Sunday, September 19, 2021
154,225FansLike
654,155FollowersFollow
0SubscribersSubscribe
Want create site? Find Free WordPress Themes and plugins.

Supreme Court expunges remarks made by Uttarakhand High Court Judge against practicing advocate

The Senior Advocate further argued that the concerned Judge was the member of the same bar as Advocate Neeraj and both were rival counsel in several contested matters before he was elevated in May, 2017.

Want create site? Find Free WordPress Themes and plugins.

The Supreme Court on Monday expunged the remarks made by a Uttarakhand High Court against a practicing advocate in different orders authored by the same judge.

A bench of Justice R.F. Nariman and Hrishikesh Roy observed that the remarks made against the advocate were based on personal perception of the High Court Judge and could have been avoided as they were unnecessary for deciding the disputes.

Advocate Neeraj Garg practicing at Uttarakhand High Court for the last 17 years approached the Supreme Court in an appeal not to challenge the High Court judgment but to remove certain observations made against the advocate in 4 different orders of the Uttarakhand High Court by the same Judge.     

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, who appeared on behalf of Advocate Neeraj Garg, argued that the remarks made against the advocate were recorded without putting the counsel to notice or providing any hearing to him. He submitted that those recordings are neither essential nor necessary for the Court’s verdict in the concerned cases.  He further submitted that such adverse comments will not only undermine the professional reputation of the Appellant but would also impact his standing and practice as a lawyer.

The Senior Advocate further argued that the concerned Judge was the member of the same bar as Advocate Neeraj and both were rival counsel in several contested matters before he was elevated in May 2017. He then submitted that comments may have emanated from personal prejudice and may not be otherwise warranted. Amar Dave, who was appointed as Amicus Curiae in this matter, seconded Rohatgi’s arguments.

The bench, while allowing the aggrieved advocate’s appeal, observed that, “while it is of fundamental importance in the realm of administration of justice to allow the judges to discharge their functions freely and fearlessly and without interference by anyone, it is equally important for the judges to be exercising restraint and avoid unnecessary remarks on the conduct of the counsel which may have no bearing on the adjudication of the dispute before the Court.”   

The bench further observed that the advocate was not given opportunity to put forth his explanation and such remarks will not only demean the advocate amongst his professional colleagues but may also adversely impact his professional career. If the same is not removed from the judgments it would be prejudicial and unjust to the advocate.

Some of the remarks made in different orders read as under,

Also Read: Sikkim High Court seeks response of Central Ground Water Board on permitting 22 companies to extract ground water

“…tenacity of argument of the learned counsel for the plaintiff/ appellant was in a manner as if, he was intentionally attempting to make a mountain of a mole, which this Court will not hesitate to re mark that was a brutal assassination of time for those other litigants, whose matters were pending consideration on the said date before this Court.”

“…this Court is constrained to make certain observations, which have been invariably found, to be followed by the learned Counsel, basically intended so as to mislead the Court or to avoid an adjudication of the case on merits and to pose difficulty to the Court… This has been a clear and consistent device, and a tactics which has been adopted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, by placing voluminous records in the Writ Petition, including the copies of precedent/ judgments, on which, the reliance has been placed…This attitude, adopted cannot be ruled out to be a professional and a strategic  device, which  is being adopted, so that Court may at the stage of hearing for admission of writ, due to paucity of time, would be constraint to admit, even the Writ Petitions, which are arising from concurrent judgments… the intention behind making reference to the judgement, was to mislead the  Court   and   to   buy   time   in   prolonging   the proceedings in order to overcome the effect of dismissal of the concurrent, Writ Petitions in limine by placing voluminous judgements on records, and making references of them, by quoting its excerpts.” 

Did you find apk for android? You can find new Free Android Games and apps.

News Update

Supreme Court refuses relief to NLSIU student who wasn’t promoted due to uncleared exams

A two-judge bench of Supreme Court said “How long you want that courts should run the institutions/universities and why should we interfere?” While relying to the contentions of the petitioners counsel to promote her to final year by way of an opportunity.

NGT directs stoppage of Baitarani river project work of sand filling, embankment, retention wall

According to the order 8 applicants are seeking a direction to the respondents restraining them from the sand filling work of the river basin of Baitarani on the South Bank at the place where river Baitarani bifurcates as Old Baitarani and New Baitarani in the Bhadrak District of Odisha.

Allahabad High Court recalls order listing case of errant advocate before another bench

The Allahabad High Court has recently recalled its order in which it had directed the listing of a matter before another bench citing the "mischievous behaviour of the advocate".

CBI seeks dismissal of petition for separating Director of Prosecution from agency, says post enjoys full autonomy in affidavit

The Central Bureau of Investigation has informed the Delhi High Court that the Directorate of Prosecution has got full autonomy and there is no interference in the functioning of a law officer and it has no decision-making power in the appointment of the Director of Prosecution.

Supreme Court allows appeal against summons issued to invoke power under Section 319 CrPC

The Supreme Court has set aside the summons passed by the Sessions Judge, Khiri saying the Sessions Judge will apply his mind in the light of principles laid down by the Constitution Bench.
Did you find apk for android? You can find new Free Android Games and apps.