Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

other. The court looks at the which would be givenwto other"

Even if he was as imtplartpial nevertheless if right--mind_ed'_persons.AWot:1d*:Tl'~~ it think that, in thelleirc-.u_mstanees,Vtiierefwas a real likelihood of on his then he should no i. sit. V In (1972) 3,SUPREME.VC¢'Ui3T.~~gAs'§;s--V"74o in the case of GOBIND .:oi%*'*iviA1~1ARAsTRA. their Lordships laeld:_a.s ' ' [iii]: gwhhich applications for ti*iansferll:a5=e:ll"'_made stand on a slightly different footing from those where a party iriakes"""an allegation, either inside or :'otitfside the court of a scandalising nature improper motives t.o the judge the case. But in the garb of a transfer application a person cannot be allowed to commit contempt of court by making allegations of a serious and scurrilous nature scandalising the court and irnputing improper motives to the judge trying the case. But then the nature of the allegations will have to be closely examined and so long as they do not satisfy the requirements of what may be__.__ regarded as contempt of court punishment can possibly be inilicted.'..'~~~--. f A' Their lordships in the above case were referring application. It was held that though some flatit1.id'e'--.hlaVs'=to be .« given in a transfer application. but the .qu"estion'WasV whether ; or not the application in that casehad eiieeaeded the limits permissible under iaw; ;fl'i~aonsi'er :ap'p1ieati.ons maybe made under circumstances control, like acquaintance o«El_'tl1.e parties or personal interest in the subje<3.t'lmatt'e.rl. Buigpliyrhen the application contains material oynotl to lcnalign the personal integrity and particular Judge and has directly attacked the Aofhio-topadriis.riisc1;r,a§r1on of justice, it would amount to Contempt against _th'e.VlA§t*1dieiary. If necessary, the higher Court takes u""'-__l"'action "for: transfer after inquiring into the material and the p:."cir'e11riistances avaiiable, including the report of the Judge of it lower Court concerned. Therefore, transfer applications stand on a slightly different footing from those Where a party makes direct attack against the Court. In the above case the applicant was an advocate who made the transfer application. Ultimately after considering the n1aterial*Vin«..the transfer application their Lordships held that . material constituting contempt of Court,__

In the case of GOBIND RAM --Vs-- s"1*A?}3; MAHARASHTRA {AIR 1972 so 989} their Lord.'si:ipsl.::whi1ep'" dealing with the allegations againstfpAthe.,,('y3oEL1i'tp ilnpla. t1"anpsierc application on the question whether "ant1'ounts»vto have held as under:
"The ' Ai_fnere.'lAd stateinveifit in 'A "an application for fa,vl\/Iagistrate is friendly W:i.1lh"a' happens to be enj_o"ysVlv4his hospitality or with him will not it unless there is an some improper motives as wouldl"'amount. to scandalizing the court 'A._i--t:s:'el,f__ and as would have a tendency to distrust in the popular mind and the confidence of the people in the courts. it is true that in the garb of a . transfer application a person cannot be allowed to Commit Contempt of Court by making allegations of a serious and scurrilous nature scandalizing the court ,.,\\m and imputing improper motives to the judge trying the case. But then the nature of the allegations has to be examined and so long as they satisfy the requirements of % regarded as contempt-.of punishment can be inflicts;-d..f'--r'