IMPORTANT POINTS
Law is no trade, brief no merchandise. Advocate has his primary duty towards the Court.
Contempt jurisdiction is for protecting reputation of the Court and the Judges and takes into its fold the Registry as well.

JUDGMENT

SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.

1. A Noble Profession. An Officer of the Court. An Advocate-on-Record having the privilege conferred in that behalf under the Supreme Court Rules, 2013. And a painful task of the Court to look into the conduct of such an advocate arrayed as a contemnor in the contempt proceedings.

2. On 07.04.2017 right in the morning at 10.30 a.m., we were confronted by Mr. Mohit Chaudhary, Advocate-on-Record, making the first mentioning in an extremely agitated and aggressive manner. He sought to contend that a great manipulation had occurred in the Registry of this Court in order to favour the opposite party with the objective of “Bench Hunt”. He sought to produce before the Court a letter dated 07.04.2017, during mentioning, which was taken on record as Annexure ‘A’. In order to appreciate the said letter, we reproduce the same as under :

 “To

The Hon’ble Chief Justice of India

Supreme Court, New Delhi

Reference : Contempt Petition (Civil) No.785 of 2015 & SLP

(C) No.31520 of 2013.

Along with connected matters

Sub : Enquiry into the act of unnatural and hasty listing of voluminous matter with sole aim of bench hunting.

 My lord,

An unfortunate, anti-institutional and manipulative trend set up by unscrupulous litigants with aim to bench hunt has led this complaint.

The above matters concern SRA project on a 33 Acre Land at South Mumbai at Colaba, conservative valuation of the dispute would be around Rs.5000 Crores. Despite interim orders passed by this Court senior officers of the department playing in hands of big corporate, indulge in act of deliberate contempt. All matters are pending.

Certain alarming detail of the events have cropped up last evening (around 18.30 hrs.), when in Supplementary List the voluminous matter (approximately 12000 pages with reports/studies etc.) was shown to be listed today in a special bench (comprising of HMJ. Arun Misra and HMJ. S. Abdul Nazeer) despite the matter not being part-heard or otherwise marked to the said bench. Matter in usual course of business should have gone to a regular bench.

In deviation from normal rule of listing the matter before regular bench and indulging in constituting a special bench, at eleventh hour is non-conventional and mischievous act on part of Registry. This gets further worse, as vide ‘Elimination List’ dated 03.04.2017 issued at 18.28 hrs this matter was shown to be deleted from the advance cause list dated 07.04.2017. Thus, putting a matter on board an evening before is virtually giving no time to a party situated at Mumbai and counsel at Delhi to prepare.

An enquiry be made and practice direction be issued specially concerning all such voluminous and high stake matters where the parties are from distant places and need sufficient notice of listing.

In present matter, serious issues arise

-Why this matter is listed in unnatural haste and without constituting enough notice to parties/lawyers and that also before a special bench, deviating from the regular bench, in violation of judicial propriety and decorum?

-Could any lawyer/party or any of the Hon’ble Judge made a request, without notice to other parties, for putting the matter on board despite its’ deletion?

       In set of disturbing facts given above, it is requested that subject matter be placed before regular bench or before the Court of Hon’ble Chief Justice and stringent practice directions be issued, as not only in present case, but registry in past has also indulged in such malpractice in past (reference is made to CIDCO and H.D. Sudhakar Vs. Metropolis Hotel matters).

Submitted By :

Sd/-

Mohit Chaudhary

Advocate-on-Record for the

Petitioner-in-person

Dated: 04.07.2017

New Delhi

Sd/-

PETITIONER”

(Emphasis supplied)

3. The allegation thus is clear and unequivocal – the Registry had colluded with the opposite litigant to hastily list the matter with the aim of bench hunting. It was categorized as “an unfortunate and anti-institutional and manipulative trend” which seems to indicate that