Satish Vishanji Futnani vs Arul Madhusudhan Futnani

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Cal) 108

DEBANGSU BASAK, MD. SHABBAR RASHIDI
Satish Vishanji Futnani – Appellant
Versus
Arul Madhusudhan Futnani – Respondent

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Kishore Datta, Advocate General, Mr. Ranjan Bachawat, Sr. Adv., Mr. Prabhakar Chowdhury, Adv., Mr. Satyaki Mukherjee, Adv., Ms. Mini Agarwal, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Venkatesh Mohanraj, Adv., Mr. Sandip Kumar De, Adv., Mr. Chinmay Deshpande, Adv, Mr. Abhijit Sarkar, Adv., Mr. V.T Narendran, Adv., Mr. Samit Biswas, Adv.,

JUDGMENT :

DEBANGSU BASAK, J.:-

1. Contemnor No. 1 in CC 57 of 2012 has filed the present application seeking this Division Bench in seisin of CC 57 of 2012 to recuse from the hearing of such contempt rule as also the connected applications therein.

2. Learned advocate appearing for the contemnor No. 1 has submitted that, the Court on diverse dates made various observations in course of hearing of the contempt rule of the connected applications which gave rise to reasonable apprehension of bias. In support of such contention, learned advocate appearing for the contemnor No. 1 has referred a written notes of arguments submitted in Court and in particular sentences claimed to be spoken on June 27, 2024, July 16, 2024, July 23, 2024, August 1, 2024, August 20, 2024, August 29, 2024, September 19, 2024, November 19, 2024, December 17, 2024.

3. Learned advocate appearing for the contemnor No. 1 has relied upon 1998 Volume 5 Supreme Court Cases 513 (State of West Bengal and Others vs. Shivananda Pathak and Others) in support of the contention that, bias may be defined as a pre-conceived opinion or a pre-disposition or pre-determination to decide a case or an issue in a particular manner, so