TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (8) TMI 1304
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r on 02.07.2021 and appointed Mr. Amar Dave as the amicus curiae to assist the Court. Mr. Dave appears and makes submissions accordingly. The Office Report in the case reflects that the Counsel for the Appellant has circulated a letter dated 13.07.2021 stating therein that the Petition has been filed only for expunging certain observations recorded against the Appellant by the High Court in the concerned cases and the Appellant is not seeking any relief against any of the arrayed Respondents and as such they be treated as Proforma Respondents. 3. Representing the Appellant, Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, the learned Senior Counsel submits that the Appellant is regularly practicing in the Uttarakhand High Court with a fairly large practice. The Counsel then submits that the remarks/observations made by the learned Judge against the Appellant were recorded without putting the counsel to notice or providing any hearing to him, before recording the adverse comments. It is also submitted that those recordings are neither essential nor necessary for the Court's verdict in the concerned cases. According to Mr. Rohatgi, such adverse comments will not only undermine the professional reputation of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....p; *** *** *** *** 2. In the present Second Appeal, when the argument for the learned Counsel for the Appellant was initiated too be addressed for quite some time, this Court is of the view that the tenacity of argument of the learned Counsel for the Plaintiff/Appellant was in a manner as if, he was intentionally attempting to make a mountain of a mole, which this Court will not hesitate to re mark that was a brutal assassination of time for those other litigants, whose matters were pending consideration on the said date before this Court. 'It further reflected that as if it was not an argument for the case but rather for the visitors' gallery. *** &nb....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bsp; *** 7. In the fourth case, W.P.(M/S) 519 of 2019, the Court on 22.02.2021, noted its displeasure against the counsel in the following manner: *** *** *** *** *** 2. Though this Court should have avoided to make this remark, but owning to the deliberate and intentional, modus operandi, which is normally adopted, which has now, become a regular feature, almost in most of the cases, which are filed by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, this Court is constraint to make certain observations, wh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion, that if judgment is put to challenge before a superior platform, he may have his argument protected that the judgment relied by him, and which were on record, before the Court, were not considered by the Court, and thus the judgment is a consequence of non-application of mind, by the High Court. 52. This Court before addressing the judgment relied, on its merit, this Court had already observed in para 2, 3 and 4 of the judgment, the modus operandi, of the counsel for the Petitioner to place reliance on the irrelevant judgments, which had got no significance or its applicability, under the facts and circumstances of the present case, and this Court has already consciously observed that the intention behind making reference to the judgment, was to mislead the Court and to buy time in prolonging the proceedings in order to overcome the effect of dismissal of the concurrent, Writ Petitions in limine by placing voluminous judgments on records, and making references of them, by quoting its excerpts. *** ***  ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ase, as an integral part thereof, to animadvert on that conduct. 10. In Alok Kumar Roy v. Dr. S.N. Sarma (1968) 1 SCR 813, in the opinion written by Justice C.K. Wanchoo for a Five Judges Bench, this Court had emphasized that even in cases of justified criticism, the language employed must be of utmost restraint. The use of carping language to disapprove of the conduct of the Counsel would not be an act of sobriety, moderation or restraint. 11. The judgment of this Court in A.M. Mathur v. Pramod Kumar Gupta (1990) 2 SCC 533, delivered by Justice K. Jagannatha Shetty, elaborates on the need to avoid even the appearance of bitterness. The Court observed that, 13...The duty of restraint, this humility of function should be constant theme of our judges. This quality in decision making is as much necessary for judges to command respect as to protect the independence of the judiciary. Judicial restraint in this regard might be better called judicial respect, that is respect by the judiciary... 12. The importance of avoiding unsavory remarks in judicial orders as per established norms of judicial propriety has also been succinctly noted in Abani Kanta Ray v. State of Orissa 1995 Supp....