Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

8.1 At paragraph No.14 it is sought to be explained that because of pandemic and closure of physical courts, he received as the President of the bar incessant calls from the lawyers members expressing their dismal conditions and because of that, he was passing through sleepless nights and was terribly disturbed within. The anguish in his utterances, use of justified language needs to be viewed in this background and may kindly be taken in its stride. He was not in any manner concerned with any matter in respect of which the grievance has been made. There are number of instances where the courts have turned a forgiving eye to criticism of itself and this may be done in the instant case also as his regrets are sincere and if his actions constituted the slightest contempt of this court, he unconditionally apologises for the same. He also added that his respect for the court is self evident from his address on the occasion of 60 the year of establishment on the 1st May 2020.


8.2        Mr.Oza also apologised before this court at




          R/CR.MA/8120/2020                                            JUDGMENT

the time of submissions of his Learned Counsels and reiterated what he stated on oath. We also note that the Learned senior Advocate Mr.Datar also while making his submissions ensured on behalf of himself and Learned senior Advocate Mr.Mihir Joshi that Mr.Oza shall not repeat any such act ever in the future and they being his counsels with responsibilities make such a statement at bar.It is their emphasis that right from the beginning unqualified apology has been tendered by Mr Oza even when the matter went to the full Court. He suffered enough and also learnt lessons very heavily therefore, the court needs to take into account the order of the Apex court which was aware of his past incident and yet chose to relegate him to this court. His additional affidavit filed on 11 th August, 2020 also reiterates his words of regrets.

9.1.1 Apt would be to reproduce relevant findings and observations of the Apex court:

"7. On the 12th May, 1954, when the appeal was heard by this Court, we recorded the following order:-
"The appellants have tendered an unqualified apology to this court and to the High Court, and they are prepared to purge the contempt for which they have been convicted. In our opinion, the apology is a sincere expression of their regret for what happened in court at the time the transfer application was R/CR.MA/8120/2020 JUDGMENT made and for the allegations made therein. We therefore adjourn this appeal for two months and direct that the apology tendered here be tendered to the Division Bench before which the contempt is said to have been committed. We are sending it to the High Court with the full confidence that the learned Judges will consider the apology in the spirit in which it has been tendered and they will pass appropriate orders and send an intimation to this court as to what orders they pass."

9.2 In Tarun Bharat Singh (supra), the Apex court accepted unconditional apology on the strength of robust facts in the matter which deserve reproduction, R/CR.MA/8120/2020 JUDGMENT "11. It is a matter of extreme regret and serious concern that an educated person, like Dr Dublish should have behaved in the above manner with an advocate of this Court who was appearing for the petitioner-organisation in Writ Petition No. 509 of 1991. The conduct of Dr Dublish was certainly offensive. We would have taken serious note of the same but for the circumstance that he has tendered an unconditional apology for his behaviour which he attributes to his agitated state of mind caused by, what according to him, was a totally unjustified, abrupt and unceremonious termination of the services of himself and his wife besides some other employees by the petitioner-organisation on that day. He says that he and other similarly placed employees were protesting against the same at the office premises of the petitioner-organisation. It so happened that Dr Dhavan's visit coincided with the said event. It also appears that some persons at that spot were the men of mine-owners who were demonstrating against the petitioner-organisation fighting the cause of environment and both these groups got mixed up. The petitioner-organisation, no doubt, says that they did not terminate the services of Dr Dublish but that he himself voluntarily resigned the job. While we do not wish to enter into the question whether it was a case of termination or resignation, what appears relevant is that Dr Dublish thought that he has been unjustly treated and on which account, he was highly agitated on that day and resorted to said agitational methods soon upon knowing about the loss of his job. In that agitated state of mind, Dr Dublish behaved offensively towards Dr Dhavan as well, which behaviour is without a doubt condemnable and for which he regrets now. There is yet another circumstance, viz., Dr Dublish has since left that area and is now employed at Jaipur. He has stated that he is in no manner connected with the petitioner-organisation, much less with the mine- owners or with the dispute concerning mining in Sariska Tiger Reserve area.