Skip to main content

Every matter is important and equal treatment is the backdrop of the Constitution

In Atanu Chattopadhyay Vs. Justice Debangsu Basak and Ors., Petitioner alleged that, because of the inaction on the part of the Respondents, the Petitioner has been denied justice and the Ministry of Law and Justice must take care and responsibility before nominating the advocates as the Hon'ble Judges of the Court, who are not fit for such posts. The Petitioner consistently harped upon denial of access to justice and injustice perpetrated upon him in not acceding to his prayer either listing as per his desire before the particular Judge and refusal to release the matter as he has inculcated a sense of bias against a particular Judge. 

Issue involved in present is whether any cause of action is pleaded leading to denial of access to justice and such allegations and/or aspersions have any legal or factual basis. 

While dismissing the Writ Petition, the court held tt is not open to any person to make scandalous, disparaging and intemperate remarks directly on the Judges or their judicial act with intent to undermine the majesty of the Court and inculcate any adverse notion against the judicial system of the country to gain publicity. It is one thing to say that the criticism against the conduct, act and the orders of the Judges in dignified and healthy manner but it is totally different when the language and the expressions impair and hamper the administration of justice. 

The impartiality, fairness and transparency lies in course of the judicial dispensation and if the learned Judge, the Respondent No. 2 herein does not find any urgency in the matter to give precedence to the Petitioner's application over the other matter, it cannot be taken as an act infringing any right of the Petitioner. The Judges in the country dealing with large cases and every citizen in the country has equal right to have its matter taken by the Court. Giving precedence to one matter as the Petitioner is appearing in person shall overreach the rights of the other person. There cannot be any discrimination between the right of each individuals guaranteed under the law. Every matter is important and equal treatment is the backdrop of the Constitution. The entire allegation is unfounded, unsubstantiated, far to speak of any truth in it. The Court should not permit any litigant to initiate a proceeding on disparaging, scurrilous and intemperate remarks against the Judges and such person should be dealt with seriously. 

Though present Court feels that, immediate action is warranted against the Petitioner for such scurrilous remark made against the Judges, yet considering his lack of understanding of the law and the functioning of the judicial system, this Court does not intend to initiate a contempt proceeding against the Petitioner but must make a remark that he should be vigilant, cautious and careful in initiating proceeding of such nature in future. Though imposition of costs is inevitable, yet bearing in mind the submission advanced by the Petitioner that, he is homeless and have no substantial income, this Court does not impose cost for this frivolous litigation. 


Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...
Post a Comment
Read more

Interim order staying the operation of an impugned order vs quashment of an impugned order

In Deific Abode LLP vs Union of India & Ors., while discussing on the issue of interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order, the Calcutta High Court observed that :- These salient principles emerge: i. As per the law laid down in Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd (supra) by the Supreme Court, the effect of an interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order are considerably different from one another. While the former merely ensures that the order impugned would not be operative from the date of the passing of the order of stay, without annihilating the said impugned order from existence, the latter ensures that such quashment results in the restoration of the position as it stood on the date the impugned order was passed, with the impugned order ceasing to exist in the eyes of the law. ii. Quashment of such impugned order would revive the appeal before the appellate authority and would be con...
Post a Comment
Read more

Ruling on applicability of threshold limit for withholding obligation in relation to sale of immovable property

In Vinod Soni and others (Taxpayer) v. ITO, the issue before the Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was whether any withholding obligation triggers on the joint buyers if the cost of the immoveable property is more than specified limit of INR5M but the share of each co-owner is less than that value. Income tax laws cast an obligation on the buyer to withhold tax on payment to seller of consideration for transfer of immoveable property if value of consideration exceeds INR5M. The Tribunal held that in a case of joint acquisition of an immovable property by various co-owners, the threshold limit of withholding obligation (i.e. INR5M) is applicable with reference to share of each co-owner and not with reference to consideration of entire property. Accordingly, the Tribunal deleted tax withholding demand raised on co-owners by the Tax Authority. Article referred: https://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/delhitrib/%24FILE/delhitrib.pdf
Post a Comment
Read more