Case: Surendra Prasad Mishra Vs. Ramawati and Ors

2. The Appellant, a judicial officer, was holding the post of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at the relevant time. A claim petition was filed before him in which vakalatnama was filed by two counsel Mr. R.M. Singh and Mr. D.K. Saxena. The matter was settled between the claimant and the Insurance Company and the settlement petition was filed and signed by Mr. D.K. Saxena. At that time, Mr. R.M. Singh raised an objection that his fees had not been paid and that the compromise should not be recorded. The Appellant herein accepted the request of Mr. R.M. Singh and held that the compromise petition could only be filed through Mr. R.M. Singh and not by Mr. D.K. Saxena. He came to the conclusion that since vakalatnama bears a sum of Rs. 10/- for the Advocates Welfare Fund, one lawyer can only be authorized and not more.This order was challenged. The High Court rightly set aside the order. It is not for any Court to settle the dispute between the lawyers with regard to payment of fees. If there is any misconduct on the part of the lawyer in taking up the brief of another lawyer, normally it is for the Bar Council and not for the Court to settle the dispute. It was rightly held by the High Court that the claimants in the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal should not be made to suffer because of the dispute between the lawyers. Having held so, the High Court made certain observations against the Appellant questioning his bona fide and casting aspersions on his integrity and also Accused him of favouring Mr. R.M. Singh. The High Court also directed on the judicial side that the matter be referred on the administrative side for an appropriate action.

Court's reasoning:
As far as the remarks are concerned, we are clearly of the view that all the adverse remarks in the judgment made against Appellant, whereby his integrity has been questioned or whereby aspersions have been cast on his character, judicial orders or otherwise are bound to be expunged.In the present case, the remarks especially those in para 15 cast aspersions on the integrity of the judicial officer. Even if the High Court felt as strongly as it did that action needed to be taken, then the proper course was to place the matter before the Chief Justice on the administrative side with a request that action be taken against the concerned judicial officer. In this case, the High Court did that but in addition passed the scathing remarks which virtually meant that the Appellant stood condemned even before any disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him.The High Court can definitely say that the order passed shows total lack of knowledge of law. But when the High Court went further and virtually castigated the judicial officer as an unworthy and corrupt person then the High Court, in our view, over-stepped its boundaries and such remarks need to be expunged.