Anil vs Rajasthan High Court
2021 Latest Caselaw 17469 Raj

     HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                      JODHPUR
             D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 649/2020
Anil S/o Umaid Mal, Aged About 64 Years, R/o 17-E, 14,
Meera Park, Jodhpur.
                                                                   ----Petitioner
                                   Versus
1.      Rajasthan High Court, Through Its Registrar General,
        Jodhpur.
2.      Registrar (Rules), Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur.
3.      Smt. Deepa Gurjar, Judge, Motor Accident Claims
        Tribunal, District Court Premises, Pali.
4.      Family Court, District Court Premises, Pali.
5.      The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Rajkot, Through Its
        Incharge, Third Party Hub Bhansali Tower, Residency
        Road, Jodhpur.
                                                                ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)         :    Mr. Anil Bhansali
For Respondent(s)         :    Mr.   Kuldeep Mathur
                               Mr.   Ankur Mathur
                               Mr.   R.S. Bhati for
                               Mr.   Jagdish Vyas



         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

                                Judgment

23/11/2021
BY THE COURT: PER HON'BLE JAIN, J.

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner Anil

who is by profession an Advocate practicing primarily at

Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur and Subordinate Courts.

By way of present petition being aggrieved by the

conduct of Judicial Officer, MACT Pali i.e. respondent No.3 and

being aggrieved by orders passed by learned MACT Pali on

31.07.2019 and 02.08.2019 marked as Annexure 6 and

(2 of 7) [CW-649/2020]

against the order passed by Registrar (Rules), Rajasthan High

Court, Jodhpur marked as Annexure 10 dated 20.09.2019,

the petitioner has sought the following prayers:-

"i. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the derogatory and scathing personal remarks about the conduct of the petitioner may kingly be ordered to be expunged from the order dated 02.08.2019 (Ann.6).

ii. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the interpolations made in the order dated 31.07.2019 (Ann.5) may kindly be directed to be deleted.

iii. By an appropriate writ, order or direction the order dated 20.09.2019 (Ann.10) be quashed and set aside.

iv. By an appropriate writ, order or direction the respondent no.3 be directed to pass the order in the Execution case No.63/2014 having finally heard the matter within one month or as may be directed by this Hon'ble Court.

v. In the alternative, by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the Execution case no.63/2014 may please be transferred to MACT-I court at Jodhpur as respondent no.5 have their Third Party Hub at Jodhpur and further direct to decide the same within one month or as may be directed by this Hon'ble Court.

vi. By an appropriate writ, order or direction initiate appropriate proceedings as deemed appropriate by this Hon'ble Court against the respondent no.3.

vii. Any other order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court deem just fit and proper be passed in favour of the petitioner.

viii. Cost of this writ petition may kindly be allowed to the petitioner."

The brief facts of the case are that one execution

application was preferred before the MACT, Pali on

12.04.2014 against respondent no.5 i.e. Oriental Insurance

Company Ltd., Rajkot for recovery of Rs. 94.35 lacs approx.

The learned Tribunal passed attachment order on 09.07.2014

directing the concerned bank to pay the decretal amount. SLP

(3 of 7) [CW-649/2020]

was preferred by respondent no.5 before the Hon'ble Apex

Court which was dismissed on 05.11.2015. In sequence of the

same, an application dated 03.08.2016 was filed before

learned Tribunal that even after deducting TDS, an amount to

the tune of Rs. 20.60 lacs is still due from the insurer and

therefore, the balance amount be directed to be paid. It was

submitted that the beneficiaries are residents of Great Britain

and in spite of rejection of SLP for a long period of time, they

are not getting the claim amount awarded in their favour. The

insurance company has taken several adjournments time and

again and in spite of keeping the matter for final orders on

15.03.2018, no order was passed; rather on one count or the

other, the matter was adjourned.

In the meantime, since the matter was delayed by the

insurer-respondent on flimsy protest and the client of the

petitioner who was non-resident claimant, pressurised the

petitioner with the probes as to legal system and the delay in

execution of the award/judgment which has attained finality

in SLP, persuaded the petitioner to approach the Registrar

(Admn.) Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur and requested him to

look into the matter as the learned Tribunal was taking a very

casual and lethargic approach in the case. On 26.07.2019,

the client of the petitioner Shri Nilesh D. Kotecha resident of

UK made complaint before The High Commissioner of India at

London and the copies were also given to the Hon'ble Chief

Justice of Rajasthan High Court and Minister for Law and

Justice Department on 26.07.2019. The petitioner also

(4 of 7) [CW-649/2020]

submitted letter to Registrar (Admn.) in sequel to the

personal meeting and reiterated the allegations.

On 01.08.2019, the petitioner along with Dr. Samir

Shrimali Advocate appeared before the learned Tribunal, the

respondent no.3 Presiding Officer shouted at the petitioner

and complained that since his client had filed complaint, she

would see to it that the matter remained undecided.

On inquiry from the learned Tribunal regarding the order

on 01.08.2019, it was informed that the file was in chamber

and the same was brought in the court on 06.08.2019 and to

the shock and surprise of the petitioner, the order sheet dated

31.07.2019 was having interpolations which are clearly

demonstrated in certified copies of the order sheets filed as

Annexures 5 and 6. It is contention of the petitioner that the

observations in the order dated 02.08.2019 are far from truth

of the matter and that the arguments were heard in his

absence and there was no occasion or reason for the learned

Tribunal to make such scathing observations and uncalled for

remarks against the lawyer bonafide pursuing the cause of his

client.

On 13.08.2019, a detailed representation was submitted

by the petitoner to the Registrar, Hon'ble Rajasthan High

Court, Jodhpur that a bare perusal of the order sheet dated

31.07.2019, clearly reflects interpolations and the same were

intentionally done by respondent no.3 to damage the

reputation of the petitioner and to create flimsy grounds and

to transfer the case in the background of the complaint made

(5 of 7) [CW-649/2020]

by the petitioner's client. In support of the representation, an

affidavit of Dr. Samir Shrimali, Advocate was also submitted.

During course of the arguments before the court, it was

informed by the contesting advocates for respective parties

that in the matter, judgment/order/decree has been passed

and therefore the prayer for quashing and setting aside the

order dated 20.09.2019 marked as Annexure 10 has been

rendered infructuous. However, the only insistence by the

petitioner's counsel was qua prayer no.1 for setting aside and

expunging the derogatory and scathing personal remarks qua

the petitioner.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the material available on record.

The Hon'ble Apex Court in its judgment rendered in Civil

Appeal No.4555-4559/2021 titled as Neeraj Garg Vs. Sarita

Rani and Ors., reported in AIR 2021 SC 3593 in relevant

paras has held as below:-

"16. Having perused the offending comments recorded in the High Court judgments, we feel that those could have been avoided as they were unnecessary for deciding the disputes. Moreover, they appear to be based on the personal perception of the learned Judge. It is also apparent that the learned Judge did not before recording the adverse comments, give any opprotunity to the Appellant to put forth his explanation. The remarks so recorded have cast aspersion on the professional integrity of the appellant. Such condemnation of the counsel, without giving him an opportunity of being heard would be a negation of the principles of audi alteram partem. The requisite degree of restraint and sobriety expected in such situations is also found to be missing in the offending comments.

17. The tenor of the remarks recorded against the appellant will not only demean him amongst his

(6 of 7) [CW-649/2020]

professional colleagues but may also adversely impact his professional career. If the comments remain unexpunged in the court judgments, it will be a cross that the appellant will have to bear, all his life. To allow him to suffer thus, would in our view be prejudicial and unjust.

18. In view of the foregoing, we are of the considered opinion that the offending remarks recorded by the learned Judge against the appellant should not have been recorded in the manner it was done. The appellant whose professional conduct was questioned, was not provided any opportunity to explain his conduct or defend himself. The comments were also unnecessary for the decision of the Court. It is accordingly held that that the offending remarks should be recalled to avoid any future harm to the appellant's reputation or his work as a member of the Bar. We therefore order expunction of the extracted remarks in paragraphs 4, 5, 6 and 7 of this judgment. The appeals are accordingly disposed of with this order."

It is noteworthy to mention here that the petitioner is a

practicing lawyer before the Hon'ble High Court of Jodhpur for

more than a decade and enjoys good standing and reputation

as member of Bar. The fact of the petitioner's client filing a

complaint on 26.07.2019 directly effecting the respondent

no.3 and the corrections/interpolations made in the order

sheets dated 31.07.2019 and the affidavit of Dr. Samir

Shrimali Advocate go to show the bonafides of the petitioner

Shri Anil Bhansali (Advocate). The present petition as on date

and stage is limited to expunging certain disparaging

observations contained in order sheet marked as Annexure 6

dated 02.08.2019 which will affect the professional reputation

of the petitioner and will also impact his standing and practice

(7 of 7) [CW-649/2020]

as a lawyer and may cause impediment in his professional

pursuits and the comments were otherwise unwarranted.

That keeping in mind the facts of the case, judgment of

Hon'ble the Apex Court rendered 'supra', we are of the

opinion that the prayer no.1 requesting for expunging the

personal remarks qua the petitioner in the order dated

02.08.2019 Annexure 6 deserves to be and is hereby allowed.

So far as prayers no. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 are concerned, as

the final order has been passed in the present matter, the

same are rendered infructuous and hence need not be

adverted to.

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed in the

aforesaid terms. The order dated 02.08.2019 (Annex. 6) to

the extent of recording the derogatory remarks qua the

petitioner is quashed and set aside.

                                   (SAMEER JAIN),J                                  (SANDEEP MEHTA),J



                                    33-amit/-









Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)