TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (9) TMI 1034
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ut on record by the respondent appearing in person. We have very sympathetically and patiently heard him even on his objection that the Bench presided over by one of us should not take up the matter. It is unfortunate that we have to pass an order and when a party-inperson or any other litigant insists on a recusal and in this manner. In the case of Subrata Roy Sahara vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in AIR 2014 SC 3241, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India speaking through Justice J.S. Khehar has held, after approving the view taken by the High Court of Delhi, that a party cannot insist on a Judge recusing himself. This is a new trend emerging when Judges are challenged in the manner that has been repeatedly noted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. A mere inconvenient question or a query and which is raised during the course of appreciation and appraisal of the legal and factual issues in a matter at hand and particularly in the nature of appeal should not result in a litigant being taken aback or, if taken aback, responding in this manner. His Lordship held as under :- "9. But Mr. C.A. Sundaram, another Senior Counsel representing the petitioner, distanced himself from the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....06 : 2009 AIR SCW 6876). The determination of the High Court whereby Mr. Justice Manmohan Sarin declined to withdraw from the hearing of the case came to be upheld, with the following observations: "The above passage, in our view, correctly sums up what should be the Court's response in the face of a request for recusal made with the intent to intimidate the court or to get better of an 'inconvenient' judge or to obfuscate the issues or to cause obstruction and delay the proceedings or in any other way frustrate or obstruct the course of justice." (Emphasis is ours) 11. In fact, the observations of the High Court of Delhi and those of this Court reflected, exactly how it felt, when learned counsel addressed the Court, at the commencement of the hearing. If it was learned counsel's posturing antics, aimed at bench-hunting or bench-hopping (or should we say, bench-avoiding), we would not allow that. Affronts, jibes and carefully and consciously planned snubs could not deter us, from discharging our onerous responsibility. We could at any time, during the course of hearing, walk out and make way, for another Bench to decide the matter, if ever we felt that, that would be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed to decide a case impartially, he has to be strict. Such strictness is demanded by the very office to which a person is appointed as a Judge. Eventually, it is a constitutional office and the institution of judiciary is above all. The law is applicable to all, rich or poor, men or women. Thus, to all citizens cutting across their religion, caste, creed, race and sex. Therefore, it is the constitution and the laws, which a Judge is obliged to uphold and while upholding them, he has to invite the wrath of litigants and advocates frequently. 5 The trend, which is now increasing, of Judges being called upon to recuse themselves, therefore, has to be deprecated and discouraged. It must be nipped in the bud. His Lordship the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Khehar once again pronounced in The Recusal order in NJAC case Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association and another vs. Union of India Writ Petition (Civil) No.13 of 2015, decided on October 16, 2015, that :- "... ... ... ... A Judge may recuse at his own, from a case entrusted to him by the Chief Justice. That would be a matter of his own choosing. But recusal at the asking of a litigating party, unless justified, must never be acce....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e himself from taking up the matters of the lawyers with whom he is closely related or where his conscience does not permit him to take up the matters of some lawyers. In these situations, there may not be any problem either with a Judge or a lawyer, but where the Court passed an order against a particular lawyer not to appear in his Court, it takes a colour of penalty or punishment to such a lawyer, which may result in taking some disciplinary action against him by the Bar Council of India or of State, which issued him a Stand of Practice. Such a stage by a Court maybe construed of black-listing of a lawyer. Seldom, such event occurs, and the Courts also normally avoid it. 16. A tendency has started growing amongst lawyers to dictate a Judge to recuse from taking up his matters when the decision goes against his client or his wavelength does not match with the Judge or he does not find comfort in conducting the matter or for some such reasons. This is an insult personally to a Judge. Such reactions are normally experienced when the lawyers take heavy fees from their clients with an assurance to bring the result of the cases in their favour or to impress upon the clients sitting....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., and his own conscience to decide a case by observing the oath which he has taken while occupying the position as a Judge. Ultimately, a Judge is also a human being and the Judges come from different strata of the Society, having their own views, ideas, angle or perception, based on the varied individual experience in life, which may or may not match with each others or with some lawyers or litigants. However, this cannot be a reason to avoid conducting the matters listed before such a Judge or the Judges. Once the constitutional authority of a Judge or the Judges to adjudicate the matters is accepted, it cannot be lowered down by asking him or them to recuse to hear and decide the matter. 19. To prevent a Judge or the Judges from performing his or their duties in this fashion causes distraction of attention in the judicial proceedings, which amounts to interference in the course of justice. Merely because a lawyer, litigant or public at large feels that the approach adopted or a decision is wrong, the authority or the force of the decision does not get eroded. A wrong decision in the matter is equally enforceable like a correct decision. If the Constitution and the laws provid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le apprehension of bias and prejudice. This party-inperson has had no occasion in the past to argue any of the cases in person before one of us (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.). Yet, he makes a request and as above. This has, therefore, taken us by surprise. The allegations of bias and apprehension of injustice having no basis, but vague and general statements being made in the application, all the more we are disinclined to grant the request. The request for recusal is, therefore, refused. 11 The reliance placed by the party-in-person which, in all fairness, we must notice is on two judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The first one is in the case of K. Veerswami vs. Union of India & Ors., (1991) SCC (3) 655. That was a landmark decision where a Presiding Officer, particularly a Judge of a Court of law was called upon to answer a charge of bribery and corruption and to face prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Challenging the very authority to summon him as an accused and to face the charge of bribery and corruption, the primary argument considered was whether a Judge and particularly of the High Court, can be subjected to such an act. 12 In negating that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ge. 14 The party-in-person would submit that unless the original records are called for and particularly the subject document, it would not be proper for this Court to express any opinion, one way or the other. 15 More often than not, litigants who are appearing in person do not realise either the restrictions or limitations on judicial power or the ambit and scope of a particular provision like Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. On par with section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, this section enables the Court to admit an appeal if that raises a substantial question of law. 16 Inviting our attention to section 292B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the specific paragraphs of the order under challenge, it is submitted by Mr. Chanderpal that there was no jurisdictional error and the assumption on the part of the Tribunal is incorrect. In that regard, our attention was invited to paragraphs 15 and 16 of the order under challenge. 17 Having carefully perused them, we are of the view that at the stage of admission, there is no necessity for calling the original records and proceedings. The Appeal, squarely raising a substantial question of law is, therefore, admitted....