Madhya Pradesh High Court
Firm Manohar Talkies Gujrati ... vs Smt. Kesharbai (Dead) Thr. Lrs. ... on 27 March, 2023
Author: Sheel Nagu
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
MCC No. 2428 of 2016
(FIRM MANOHAR TALKIES GUJRATI BAZAR SAGAR Vs SMT. KESHARBAI (DEAD) THR. LRS. SMT. VIJAY
LAXMI AND OTHERS)
Dated : 27-03-2023
None of the counsel authorized by petitioner in the Power of Attorney is
present.
None of the counsel authorized by LRs of respondent No.9 in the
Power of Attorney is present.
In respect of a call given by the M.P. State Bar Council asking the
members of the Bar in the State of M.P. to abstain from Court work w.e.f.
23.03.2023, the Division Bench of this Court took suo moto cognizance of the
situation in W.P. No.7295/2023 ( In Reference (Suo Moto) vs. Chairman,
State Bar Council of M.P. & Others) and passed order on 24.03.2023, the
operative portion of which is reproduced below for ready reference and
convenience:-
"18. Under these circumstances, since the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has been violated and keeping
in mind the interest of the poor litigants, we deem it just and
necessary to issue the following directions:-
(i) All the advocates throughout the State of Madhya
Pradesh are hereby directed to attend to their court work
forthwith. They shall represent their clients in the respective
cases before the respective courts forthwith;
(ii) If any lawyer deliberately avoids to attend the court, it
shall be presumed that there is disobedience of this order
and he will be faced with serious consequences including
initiation of proceedings for contempt of court under the
Contempt of Courts Act;
(iii) If any lawyer prevents any other lawyer from attending
the court work, the same would be considered as
disobedience of these directions and he will be faced with
serious consequences including initiation of proceedings
under the Contempt of Courts Act;
(iv) Each of the judicial officers are directed to submit a
report as to which lawyer has deliberately abstained from
attending the court;
(v) The judicial officers shall also mention the names of
advocates who have prevented other advocates from
entering the court premises or from conducting their cases
in the court;
(vi) Such advocates shall be dealt with seriously which may
even include proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act
as well as being debarred from practice.
The Registry is directed to ensure that all the respondents
are served with the notice of this petition as well as of this order
forthwith.
Post after service of notice".
Despite writ of mandamus having been issued by Coordinate Bench on
24.03.2023, counsel for petitioner Shri Jai Shukla, Shri Alok Tiwari, Shri
Samir Banerji, Ms. Swati Aseem George and Shri Vijay Shukla despite
being authorized by petitioner vide Power of Attorney and also counsel for LRs
of respondent No.9 Shri Ashish Tiwari, despite being authorized by LRs of
respondent No.9 vide Power of Attorney are abstaining from Court work.
This prima facie amounts to disobedience of the writ of mandamus
issued on 24.03.2023 in W.P. No.7295/2023.
Accordingly, Registry is directed to issue show cause notice to Shri Jai
Shukla, Shri Alok Tiwari, Shri Samir Banerji, Ms. Swati Aseem George,
Shri Vijay Shukla and Shri Ashish Tiwari to explain before the next date of
hearing as to why proceedings for contempt be not initiated against them for
disobedience of order passed by the Division Bench on 24.03.2023 in W.P.
No.7295/2023.
Registry is further directed to maintain a separate file qua the contempt
notice.
List after two weeks.
(SHEEL NAGU) (VIRENDER SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
DV
Digitally signed by
DINESH VERMA
Date: 2023.03.29
11:04:37 +05'30'
