Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.31 seconds)M.B. Sanghi, Advocate vs High Court Of Punjab And Haryana And Ors on 31 July, 1991
A lawyer cannot be a mere mouthpiece of his client and cannot associate
himself with his client in maligning the reputation of judicial officer
merely because his client failed to secure the desired order from the said
officer. A deliberate attempt to scandalize the Court which would shake
the confidence of the litigating public in the system and would cause a
very serious damage to the name of the judiciary. [vide M.Y. Shareef &
Anr. Vs. Hon'ble Judges of Nagpur High Court & Ors., (1955) 1 SCR
757; Shamsher Singh Bedi vs. High Court of Punjab & Haryana, (1996) 7
SCC 99 and M.B. Sanghi, Advocate vs. High Court of Punjab & Haryana
& Ors. (supra)].
The Advocates Act, 1961
Mahabir Prasan Singh vs M/S Jacks Aviation Private Ltd on 13 November, 1998
In Mahabir Prasad Singh vs. Jacks Aviation Pvt. Ltd., (1999) 1 SCC 37,
this Court held that it is the solemn duty of every Court to proceed with
judicial function during Court hours and no Court should yield to
9
Shri Amar H. Manjrekar
Smt. Shubhangi A. Manjrekar
pressure tactics or boycott calls or any kind of browbeating. The Bench
as well as the Bar has to avoid unwarranted situations or trivial issues
that hamper the cause of justice and are in the interest of none.
M/S. Chetak Construction Ltd vs Om Prakash & Ors on 20 April, 1998
In Chetak Construction Ltd. vs. Om Prakash & Ors., (1998) 4 SCC 577,
this Court deprecated the practice of making allegations against the
Judges and observed as under: "Indeed, no lawyer or litigant can be
permitted to browbeat the court or malign the presiding officer with a
view to get a favourable order. Judges shall not be able to perform their
duties freely and fairly if such activities were permitted and in the result
administration of justice would become a casualty and rule of law would
receive a setback. The Judges are obliged to decide cases impartially and
without any fear or favour. Lawyers and litigants cannot be allowed to
"terrorize" or "intimidate" Judges with a view to "secure" orders which
they want. This is basic and fundamental and no civilised system of
administration of justice can permit it........"
Radha Mohan Lal vs Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench) on 11 February, 2003
Similar view has been reiterated in Radha Mohan Lal vs. Rajasthan High
Court, (2003) 3 SCC 427.
L.D. Jaikwal vs State Of U.P on 17 May, 1984
In the case of L.D. Jaikwal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1984) 3 SCC 405, it
was held by this Court that acceptance of an apology from a contemnor
should only be a matter of exception and not that of a rule and expressed
its opinion as under:
Vinod Solanki vs Union Of India & Anr on 18 December, 2008
3. Thereafter the assessee relied on the Judgement of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Vinod Solanki Vs Union of India and
Another, for the proposition that the assessee need not demonstrate to
the hilt that the confession was under threat or inducement.
Lalit Mohan Das vs Advocate-General, Orissa on 29 November, 1956
In Lalit Mohan Das vs. Advocate General, Orissa & Another, AIR 1957 SC
250, this Court observed as under: "A member of the Bar undoubtedly
owes a duty to his client and must place before the Court all that can
fairly and reasonably be submitted on behalf of his client. He may even
submit that a particular order is not correct and may ask for a review of
that order. At the same time, a member of the Bar is an officer of the
Court and owes a duty to the Court in which he is appearing. He must
uphold the dignity and decorum of the Court and must not do anything
to bring the Court itself into disrepute. The appellant before us grossly
overstepped the limits of propriety when he made imputations of
partiality and unfairness against the Munsif in open Court. In suggesting
that the Munsif followed no principle in his orders, the appellant was
14
Shri Amar H. Manjrekar
Smt. Shubhangi A. Manjrekar
adding insult to injury, because the Munsif had merely upheld an order
of his predecessor on the preliminary point of jurisdiction and Court fees,
which order had been upheld by the High Court in revision. Scandalizing
the Court in such manner is really polluting the very fount of justice;
such conduct as the appellant indulged in was not a matter between an
individual member of the Bar and a member of the judicial service; if
brought into disrepute the whole administration of justice."
Shamsher Singh Bedi vs High Court Of Punjab And Haryana on 8 December, 1994
A lawyer cannot be a mere mouthpiece of his client and cannot associate
himself with his client in maligning the reputation of judicial officer
merely because his client failed to secure the desired order from the said
officer. A deliberate attempt to scandalize the Court which would shake
the confidence of the litigating public in the system and would cause a
very serious damage to the name of the judiciary. [vide M.Y. Shareef &
Anr. Vs. Hon'ble Judges of Nagpur High Court & Ors., (1955) 1 SCR
757; Shamsher Singh Bedi vs. High Court of Punjab & Haryana, (1996) 7
SCC 99 and M.B. Sanghi, Advocate vs. High Court of Punjab & Haryana
& Ors. (supra)].