Nafar Chandra Jute Mills Ltd. Vs. United Bank of India & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 3185 of 1999
Petitioner: Nafar Chandra Jute Mills Ltd.
Respondent: United Bank of India & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 3185 of 1999
Judges: S.P. BHARUCHA, SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI & N. SANTOSH HEGDE, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Aug 31, 2000
Head Note:
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Constitution
Article 136 – Appeal – Counsel not appearing – Junior advocate stating the Counsel on his legs before another Court – When asked about advocate-on-record, he was disclosed to be taking medicine – When Counsel appeared, he contradicted the fact of advocate-on-record taking medicine. Held that such false statements are not tolerable. Appeal dismissed .
(Paras 1, 2)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. When the matter reached hearing, we were informed by a learned advocate that Mr. P.S. Mishra was appearing for the appellant and that he was on his legs in another court, and he sought a pass over. We asked where the appellants’s advocate-on-record was. We were said that he was coming. So we waited, during which time the learned Solicitor General, appearing for the first respondent, gave us the facts. The same advocate who had said that the ad-vocate-on-record was coming, now appeared again and said that the advocate-on-record, was taking medicines and was coming. It is because of that we continued to wait and the learned Solicitor General went on to read parts of the impugned judgment. About ten minutes later, Mr. Mishra and the advocate-on-record ap-peared. We asked Mr. Mishra where the advocate-on-record had been all this time and we were told that he had been instructing Mr. Mishra in the other court. We asked, therefore, whether the statement of the learned advocate that the advocate-on-record had been taking medicine, was correct. The answer was that it was not correct. We asked why the learned advocate had, then made such a statement. We were told that it might have been out of nervous-ness. Nervousness, in our view, would not bring to a junior advocate the thought of making the excuse of ‘medicines’. A false statement has been made to us to keep the matter going, till Counsel could appear, which we will not tolerate.
2. Mr. Mishra now states that he is appealing to our conscience. Our conscience dictates that the Court will not tolerate false statements made to it at the Bar, whether by a junior advocate or by anybody else. Mr. Mishra should know better than to refer to our conscience in these circumstances.
3. The civil appeal is dismissed.
1. When the matter reached hearing, we were informed by a learned advocate that Mr. P.S. Mishra was appearing for the appellant and that he was on his legs in another court, and he sought a pass over. We asked where the appellants’s advocate-on-record was. We were said that he was coming. So we waited, during which time the learned Solicitor General, appearing for the first respondent, gave us the facts. The same advocate who had said that the ad-vocate-on-record was coming, now appeared again and said that the advocate-on-record, was taking medicines and was coming. It is because of that we continued to wait and the learned Solicitor General went on to read parts of the impugned judgment. About ten minutes later, Mr. Mishra and the advocate-on-record ap-peared. We asked Mr. Mishra where the advocate-on-record had been all this time and we were told that he had been instructing Mr. Mishra in the other court. We asked, therefore, whether the statement of the learned advocate that the advocate-on-record had been taking medicine, was correct. The answer was that it was not correct. We asked why the learned advocate had, then made such a statement. We were told that it might have been out of nervous-ness. Nervousness, in our view, would not bring to a junior advocate the thought of making the excuse of ‘medicines’. A false statement has been made to us to keep the matter going, till Counsel could appear, which we will not tolerate.
2. Mr. Mishra now states that he is appealing to our conscience. Our conscience dictates that the Court will not tolerate false statements made to it at the Bar, whether by a junior advocate or by anybody else. Mr. Mishra should know better than to refer to our conscience in these circumstances.
3. The civil appeal is dismissed.
