1998 Supreme(SC) 498

1998(4) Supreme 191
Supreme Court of India
(From Madhya Pradesh High Court)
A.S. Anand and K. Venkataswami, JJ.
M/s. Chetak Construction Ltd. -Appellant
versus
Om Prakash & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2140 of 1998
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 13190 of 1997)
And
In the matter of reference of Hon’ble Single Judge of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore dated 16th May, 1997 submitted in Misc. Appln. No. 143/1994)
Decided on 20-4-1998
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants in C.A. Nos. 2140/98 and 13021/96 : D.D. Thakur, S.C. Bagadia, Ms. Indira Jaisingh, Sr. Advocates, Vivek Gambhir, S.K. Gambhir, Advocates.
For the Appellant in C.A. No. 7460/95 : J.M. Khanna, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Pradeep Aggarwal and Sushil Kumar Jain, Advo­cates.
For the Respondent in C.A. No. 7460/95 : K.L. Taneja and Niraj Sharma, Advocates.

Important Point
In the action of appellant and his lawyer in making request to the learned single Judge of the High Court to rescue himself from the case on remand by Sup­reme Court, neither impugned order/direc­tion/reference by the single Judge is tenable to the Supreme Court in law nor any case made out for initiation of contempt proceedings as suggested by the learned single Judge.

Headnote:Practice and Procedure of Court-Supreme Court remanding a case in appeal to High Court-On remand, appellant seeking the Judge concerned not to hear it because of his alleged interest-Judge heard and made a reference to Supreme Court not to remand but decide the appeal itself finally and for contempt proceedings against appellant and his law­yers-Whether impugned order/direction/reference by single Judge of High Court tenable in law? (No)-Whether contempt proceedings as suggested be initiated? (No) - Effect - Matter again remanded of CJ of M.P. High Court to assign appeal to a learned Judge of the H.C. at Jabalpur-Order accordingly. (Paras 25, 26 and 28)

       Held : Indeed, no lawyer or litigant can be permitted to brow beat 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 set back. 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. We certainly, cannot ap­prove of any attempt on the part of any litigant to go “forum shop­ping”. A litigant cannot be permitted ‘choice’ of the `forum’ and every attempt at “forum shopping” must be crushed with a heavy hand. (Para 19)

       At the same time, it is of utmost importance to remember that Judges must act as impartial referees and decide cases objectively, uninfluenced by any personal bias or prejudice. A Judge should not allow his judicial position to be compromised at any cost. This is essential for maintaining the integrity of the institution and public confidence in it. The credibi­lity of this institution rests on the fairness and impartiality of the Judges at all le­vels. It is the principle of highest importance, for the proper administration of justice, that judicial powers must be exer­cised impartially and within the bounds of law. Public confidence in the judiciary rests on legiti­macy of judicial process. Sources of legitimacy are in the impersonal application by the Judge of recognised objective principles which own their existence to a system as distinguished from subjective moods, predilections, emotions and prejudices. Judges must always ensure that they do not allow the credibility of the institution to be eroded. We must always remember that justice must not only be done but it must also be seen to be done. (Para 20)

       (In the instance case), we find the reference/’directions’ untenable and the order devoid of any legal sanctity. We, accordingly set aside the same. (Para 25)

       In the course of the impugned “reference”, the learned single Judge has also suggested that contempt proceedings be initiated against some of the lawyers who appeared before him besides the appel­lant. On the basis of what we have noticed above, we find no cause to have been made out to institute contempt proceedings, as suggested. (Para 26)

       Held finally we have given our careful consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case but are not persuaded to initiate con­tempt proceeding as suggested by the learned single Judge either against the lawyers or the appellant for their “action” in making request to the learned Judge to recuse himself from the case. The reference to that extent is also declined. (Para 26)

       On the basis of what we have said above, we set aside the impugned order/ direction/reference. (Para 27)

       Misc. Appeal No. 143 of 1994 has already been remanded by us twice to the High Court for its disposal on merits in accordance with law. After the second remand order made in C.A. No. 13201 of 1996, the appeal has not been heard and the case has been “sent back” to this court for `final’ `hearing’. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we consider it appropriate, to once again remand Misc. Appeal No. 143 of 1994 to the High Court for its fresh disposal in accordance with law. The record of the case shall be sent to the High Court for being placed before the learned Chief Justice of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur. We request the learned Chief Justice of the High Court to assign the appeal to a learned Judge sitting at Jabalpur (not at Indore or Gwalior) for its disposal in accordance with law expeditiously. (Para 28)

       But held the learned Judge at Jabalpur, to whom the appeal shall be as­signed by the learned Chief Justice, shall decide the appeal on its own merits uninfluenced by any observations made by the learned single Judge (Mr. Justice R.D. Vyas) in the impunged order. (Para 29)