The main legal point established in the judgment is that unfounded apprehensions of bias and baseless allegations against a judge are not sufficient grounds for recusal, and judges must fulfill their duty to dispense justice without fear or favour.

1. Advocate Mathews J. Nedumpara has filed an application/praecipe dated 14th October, 2014 requesting that I (this Court) should recuse myself from hearing all the matters in which Advocate Nedumpara appears for one of the parties.

2. In an order dated 1st August, 2014, made in the above Official Liquidator's report, this Court had commented on the conduct of Advocate Nedumpara. In paragraphs 56 to 70 of the said order this Court observed:

(i) That Advocate Nedumpara was addressing the Court in an aggressive, discourteous and offensive manner; that he was not willing to listen to the Court and kept addressing and making remarks that were most inappropriate;

(ii) That it was clear to the Court that this was nothing but a stalling tactic to ensure that matter on the Official Liquidator's Report did not proceed;

(iii) That he was disrespectful and offensive in the manner in which he addressed the Court and that his tone and tenor was accusatory;

(iv) That he resolutely refused to address even a single query from the Court, or address the court on the merits of the Official Liquidator's report that was before the Court;

(v) That his demeanour was obstructive and intended to interfere with the administration of justice and lower the dignity and authority of the Court;

(vi) That such conduct constituted sufficient reasons to issue a show cause notice for criminal contempt, or to be dealt with immediately and summarily as contempt in the face of the Court.

(vii) However, in paragraph 70 of the order this Court only issued a warning to Advocate Nedumpara that the Court would not tolerate this conduct and that if such conduct was repeated, the Court would be constrained to act.

3. Thereafter, the Court received a letter from Advocate Nedumpara dated 29th September, 2014, requesting this Court to recuse itself "......from hearing the above Petition and from all matters where I am the counsel for the parties......." on the ground that having regard to the observations made in the order dated 1st August, 2014, his client felt "......that your Lordship has some kind of disaffection for me". Advocate Nedumpara also stated that having regard to the observations in the order he felt "difficulty or embarrassment in appearing before Your Lordship".

4. On 10th October, 2014, Advocate Nishant Sangle, instructed by Advocate Nedumpara appeared before the Court for the ex-Directors of R-Tec Systems in liquidation and stated that as Advocate Nedumpara was appearing in the matter, the Court should recuse itself. R-Tec Systems was not the Company/client represented by Advocate Nedumpara in relation to the order of 1st August, 2014. By an order dated 10th October, 2014, the Court rejected the oral request to recuse itself and gave time to the ex-Directors to file their reply to the Official Liquidator's report by 14th October, 2014.

5. On 14th October, 2014, Advocate Navaneetha Krishnan submitted a praecipe/ application on behalf of Advocate Nedumpara praying that this Court should recuse itself from hearing the matter. Advocate Krishnan submitted that the Court should peruse the application and pass a written order. By an order dated 29th October, 2014, this Court recorded, inter alia, the aforesaid facts/events and noted that "...... the question whether a party and/or his Advocate can insist on a Judge recusing himself from a particular matter....." was of some importance and appointed Mr. Aspi Chinoy, Senior Advocate, as amicus curiae to assist the Court at the time of hearing of the Application dated 14th October, 2014, and adjourned the hearing to 11th November, 2014. Accordingly, the Application of Advocate Nedumpara is today taken up for hearing.

6. The Advocates appearing in some of the matters against Advocate Nedumpara are also present before the Court to oppose the application of Advocate Nedumpara and to submit that they as well as their clients do not agree that this Court should recuse itself from the matters concerning them and their clients