Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“By using scandalous and intemperate language and by shouting in open Court in a loud and aggressive manner, applicant’s advocate has prima facie committed acts which tend to lower the dignity of the Court and interfere with the administration of justice.”
“Instead of expressing regret or tendering an apology, he persisted with such allegations and even called upon the Court to tender an apology.”
“Instead of tendering an unqualified apology, has tried to contest his act of solemnizing the second marriage during the pendency of the above appeal and stay having been granted therein.”
The Court stated that when a decision of a coordinate bench of the same High Court is brought in notice, it is to be respected and is binding to the Bench of such co-equal strength. For taking a different view, it is required to refer the question to the larger bench, as it is the only course of action open to a Bench of a co-equal strength.
Madhya Pradesh High Court stated that despite opportunities, the respondent failed to offer a genuine apology or show remorse for his actions.
“An advocate has to fearlessly uphold the interest of his client by all fair and honourable means without regard to any unpleasant consequences to himself or any other, but he must exercise restraint in using intemperate language during arguments in the Court.”
“It is incumbent upon the Courts of justice to check such actions with a firm hand which otherwise will have pernicious consequences.”
The Supreme Court strongly criticised litigants who use ‘apology’ as a ‘potent weapon’ to evade punishment and expressed concern over the trend of courts showing excessive leniency towards those held in contempt.
The Delhi High Court had initiated criminal contempt proceedings against defendants in a suit after the Registrar (Vigilance)’s inquiry revealed that the defendants placed a fabricated Intellectual Property Appellate Board’s Order on record.