1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2196 OF 2009 Sukanraj R. Jain .. Petitioner Vs. Central Bank of India & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.Mathews .J.Nadumpara for the petitioner Mr.Mayur Khandeparkar with Ms.Sapana Rachure i/b T.N.Tripathi & Co. for respondent no.1 Mr.G.Hariharan for respondent no.5 Mr.P.N.Patwardhan with Mr.K.H.Kanojia for respondent no.8 Mr.S.A.Khan i/b Judicature Law Associates for respondent no.9 CORAM : J. N. Patel, Acting C.J., B.R.Gavai, J. DATE : January 11, 2010 P.C. : 1. In view of the fact that the proceedings in DRT are pending, we are not inclined to entertain the petition, particularly in the light of the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Mardia Chemicals Ltd. and Others versus Union of India & Others reported in 2004(4) Bom. C.R. 530. Petition is therefore, dismissed. 2 2. After we passed the order, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this court has not heard him properly and that he has not concluded his arguments. 3. We have heard the learned counsel at length in the morning session and he was accommodated in the afternoon session. So far he has submitted a single sheet of the list of authorities in support of his case and want to address the court on certain fundamental issues. 4. In our view, these authorities are not relevant for considering the case and we have therefore, informed the learned counsel not to agitate the issue further in this court as this court has already passed the order. Inspite of that, the learned counsel insisted on being heard. We appreciate the anxiety on the part of the learned counsel but there has to be limit in the matter particularly, when the court has dismissed the petition. We caution the learned counsel that if he takes further time of the court, we will be constrained to issue a show cause notice to him. Inspite of our caution, the learned counsel still persists to go on. This court refused to hear him and request him to leave the court. 5. It is pointed out to us that in a Writ Petition No.1948 of 2009 filed by son of the petitioner Sanjay Sukhanraj Jain which came to be disposed of by the coordinate bench of this court on 2.12.2009, the concerned counsel Mr.Mathews J. Nedumpara conducted himself in the same manner and in 3 para 8 of the order, this court has recorded as under:- 8. “ In view of the above, the petitioner cannot agitate before this court that hearing ought to have been given to him before passing order under Section 14 of the NPA Act. When this court pointed out this to learned counsel for the petitioner and he was told that his remedy is not before this court, he insisted on going on with this matter. We, therefore, patiently heard him for 35 minutes so that no grievance should be made that he was not given a proper hearing. Once having taken a view that hearing is not to be given to the borrower before passing an order under Section 14 of the NPA Act, it is not possible for us to entertain this petition.” 6. It appears that the counsel is in a habit of conducting himself in a manner which can be called as a contemptuous conduct. In view of the fact that the counsel comes from the State of Kerala and is new to this bar, we do not propose to initiate action proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 but this court declines to hear him further in the matter and again forewarn him that if he does not leave the court this court will be constrained to get him removed out of the court through its staff. (ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE) (B.R.GAVAI, J) 4