Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DEEPAK GUPTA, ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
RE : VIJAY KURLE & ORS. – Petitioner(s)
SMC(Crl.) No.2/2019
Decided On : 02-09-2019
Withdrawal - Court Procedure - The court granted permission for the withdrawal of counsel and directed the respondents to file their reply to the petition within three weeks. The court also directed the contemnors to remain present in-person on the next hearing date. The court discharged one of the respondents from contempt charges but reserved the right to summon him again if new evidence emerged.
Fact of the Case:
The court granted permission for the withdrawal of counsel, directed the respondents to file their reply to the petition within three weeks, and ordered the contemnors to remain present in-person on the next hearing date. The court also discharged one of the respondents from contempt charges but reserved the right to summon him again if new evidence emerged.
Finding of the Court:
The court granted permission for the withdrawal of counsel, directed the respondents to file their reply to the petition within three weeks, and ordered the contemnors to remain present in-person on the next hearing date. The court also discharged one of the respondents from contempt charges but reserved the right to summon him again if new evidence emerged.
Issues: Withdrawal of counsel, filing of reply by respondents, in-person appearance of contemnors, discharge of respondent from contempt charges, reservation of right to summon again
Ratio Decidendi: The court has the discretion to grant permission for the withdrawal of counsel, direct respondents to file their reply, and order in-person appearance of contemnors. The court may discharge a respondent from contempt charges but reserve the right to summon again if new evidence emerges.
Final Decision: The court granted permission for the withdrawal of counsel, directed the respondents to file their reply to the petition within three weeks, and ordered the contemnors to remain present in-person on the next hearing date. The court also discharged one of the respondents from contempt charges but reserved the right to summon him again if new evidence emerged.
ORDER
1. Mr. V.K. Dwivedi, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of Mr. Shubham Bhalla, AOR, for the respondents no.1 and 2 seeks permission of the Court to withdraw from the case. Permission is granted since Mr. Parthov Sarkar, learned counsel, has put an appearance on behalf of respondents no.1 and 2.
2. Respondent No.3, who has appeared in person, states that the Registry has not given complete copy of the annexures to him. Registry is directed to handover the copy of annexures today itself by 4 p.m. to the respondent No.3. The respondents no.1, 2 and 3 are directed to file their reply to the petition within three weeks from today.
3. List on 30.09.2019. On that date all the contemnors shall remain present in-person.
4. An application has been moved by respondent No.4 Mr. Mathews Nedumpara for discharge. This contempt was registered basically on the joint complaint filed by the President of the Bombay Bar Association and the President of the Bombay Incorporated Law Society. In this complaint reference has been made to a communication (sent by respondents no.1 and 2) and the allegation against respondents no.3 and 4 is that they have acted in tandem with respondents no.1 and 2. Other than this allegation, there is no other material to show that respondent no.4 connived with respondents no.1 and 2.
5. Respondent No.4, in his discharge application, has stated that he barely knows respondents no.1 and 2 and has no concern with the communication sent by them. According to him, he is neither the author of this communication nor has he encouraged respondents no.1 and 2 to send the same. At this stage there is no direct material to connect respondent no.4 with the said communication.
6. We, therefore, discharge Shri Mathews Nedumpara at this stage. We make it clear that, in case, during the hearing of this case, it is found that respondent no.4 is behind the issuance of this communication or that he has connived with respondents no.1 and 2, this order will not come in the way of this Court in summoning him again. Needless to say, respondent No.4 will have liberty to take all defences which may be available to him under law.
7. As far as respondent no.3 is concerned, we make it clear that we have not expressed any view on the matter.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
