Lawyers have no right to go on strike or boycott, and courts are not obligated to adjourn matters in case of Lawyers' strike. The judgment emphasizes the importance of maintaining distance from the public and Lawyers.

( 1 ) THE Board shows the name of Mr. M. B. Gandhi and Mrs. Trusha gandhi, learned Advocates for the applicants, and M/s. Singhi and company for Opponent No. 1, but, none is present. The Official liquidator is in attendance.

( 2 ) IT appears that in relation to an incident dated 17th february, 2006, when this Court issued a Notice of contempt to mr. S. B. Vakil, an Advocate practising in this Court, the Lawyers convened a meeting and thereafter, passed a Resolution to boycott this Court for two days, viz. 22nd and 23rd February, 2006. Though the fact was not officially communicated to me, but, I could learn about it from the yesterdays newspapers. Not only this, I had been receiving phone calls from Madhya Pradesh, chhatisgarh, Patna, including the townships like Indore, Raipur, bilaspur, Jabalpur, etc. The Bar Association, after passing a resolution, which is patently based on false informations, issued a Press Note to the Press Trust of India and other news channels. At Indore, in "dainik Bhaskar" (Hindi), the news have been flashed with my photograph and it has been reported that justice Garg does not sit in the Court for more than two hours; he does not work; he misbehaves with the Lawyers; and, he has issued notice unnecessarily.

( 3 ) SO far as the question of issuing notice to Mr. S. B. Vakil is concerned, it is not in dispute or at least for me, it is not in dispute that his mobile phone started ringing in the Court and he started walking out; I called him and when I asked him as to why his mobile phone was ringing in the Court and was not kept on silent mode, without showing any remorse or expressing any regrets, he had stated that he was to take medicine at 12:30 pm, therefore, he had set an alarm for 12:30 pm. When this Court asked him that why there was no remorse or regrets, and, in such an event, why the Court should not issue a Notice. By his conduct, he exhibited as if he was ready and willing to accept the Notice. The Court accordingly issued the Notice.

( 4 ) FROM the newspapers, I have also learnt that the Bar association says that I knew the fact that Mr. S. B. Vakil is a heart patient. Unfortunately, this is a blatant lie. I have no personal connections with Mr. S. B. Vakil, nor I know him personally. He is a respected Counsel in the Court and as a counsel only, I know him.

( 5 ) THE Bar Association also passed the Resolution showing that I dont work in the Court for more than two hours. Though I am not required to justify my judicial conduct, but, I must say that the Bar Association, with fullest knowledge of the facts to undermine my authority and cause disreputation to me, has made this false and fraudulent statement. No Lawyer in this Court can say that I have not finished the days work. If the case are listed in less numbers and I conclude the cases within two hours, I am not supposed to sit upto 4:45 pm. in the Court. For three " four days, I did not hear the final hearing matters as the Lawyers continuously were asking for adjournments in the final hearing matters. I always persuaded the Lawyers that instead of making a prayer for adjournment, they must come prepared and argue the matters. It appears that some of the lawyers are annoyed with me because I have stopped the practice of mentioning at the beginning of the day. It is routine in this court that when a Judge takes the seat, almost every Lawyer jumps upon and says that they want an adjournment for one reason or the other. I had been asking the Lawyers that instead of asking for adjournment on one ground or the other, they must wait for their turn. I stopped this practice. It appears that it has caused heart burning. I had been asking the Senior Lawyers that if they are not available to argue the matter or if they are busy in some other court, then, they must ask their junior to appear in the Court, allow him to argue the matter and if the Court is convinced with his arguments, relief would be granted, but, if the Court is not convinced with

Click Here to Read the rest of this document