Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Dr. Jaya Balasundaram, Dr. B. Sreekar, and Dr. Ashwini Sreekar, were the decree holders in Execution No.1201/2020, seeking enforcement of an arbitral award dated 28.08.2019 passed in A.C.No.146/2018. During the execution proceedings before the V Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, the trial judge passed three orders dated 11.09.2020, 21.09.2020, and 24.09.2020, which contained adverse remarks and strictures against the counsel for the petitioners, a senior member of the Bar. The petitioners filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to set aside those remarks. The High Court examined the orders and found that the language used by the trial judge was intemperate and unwarranted. The court noted that the remarks were not necessary for the decision of the case and reflected on the professional conduct of the counsel without justification. The High Court held that judges must exercise restraint and avoid making disparaging remarks against lawyers, as it undermines the dignity of the legal profession. The court expunged the adverse remarks and strictures from all three impugned orders and directed the trial judge to proceed with the execution case in accordance with law, uninfluenced by the observations made in the writ petition. The judgment emphasizes the importance of judicial propriety and the need for courts to refrain from casting aspersions on counsel unless essential for the case.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Execution Proceedings - Adverse Remarks Against Counsel - The trial judge used intemperate language against the counsel for the decree holders in execution proceedings, which was not necessary for the decision of the case. The High Court held that such remarks are unwarranted and expunged them, emphasizing that judges must exercise restraint and avoid casting aspersions on counsel unless essential for the case. (Paras 1-5) B) Constitutional Law - Article 227 - Power of Superintendence - The High Court exercised its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to expunge adverse remarks made by the trial judge against the counsel, as the remarks were not justified and reflected on the professional conduct of a senior advocate. (Paras 1-5) C) Legal Ethics - Judicial Propriety - Adverse Remarks - The court reiterated that judges should not make disparaging remarks against lawyers in orders, as it undermines the dignity of the legal profession and the administration of justice. The remarks were expunged with a direction to the trial judge to proceed with the execution case in accordance with law. (Paras 4-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the adverse remarks and strictures made by the trial judge against the counsel for the petitioners in execution proceedings are sustainable and should be expunged.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition and expunged the adverse remarks and strictures made by the trial judge in the orders dated 11.09.2020, 21.09.2020, and 24.09.2020. The trial judge was directed to proceed with the execution case in accordance with law, uninfluenced by the observations made in the writ petition.
Law Points
- Adverse remarks against counsel must be avoided unless essential for case decision
- judicial restraint
- professional conduct of lawyers
- Article 227 of Constitution of India
