{"id":252199,"date":"2021-08-03T17:00:37","date_gmt":"2021-08-03T11:30:37","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=252199"},"modified":"2021-08-06T10:50:31","modified_gmt":"2021-08-06T05:20:31","slug":"judges-should-exercise-restraint-and-avoid-unnecessary-remarks","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/08\/03\/judges-should-exercise-restraint-and-avoid-unnecessary-remarks\/","title":{"rendered":"Judges should exercise restraint and avoid unnecessary remarks against conduct of the counsel: SC orders expunging adverse remarks against advocate with 17 yrs of standing at the Bar"},"content":{"rendered":"

Supreme Court:<\/strong> A Division Bench of R.F. Nariman and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ. directed that adverse comments recorded against the appellant\u2500advocate in certain judgments of the Uttaranchal High Court be recalled. The Supreme Court found that the offending remarks were unnecessary for deciding the disputes and appeared to be based on personal perception of the Presiding Judge. The requisite degree of restraint and sobriety expected in such situations was also found missing in the offending remarks.<\/p>\n

Facts and Appeal<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n

The appellant was a practicing advocate before the Uttaranchal High Court with around 17 years of standing at the Bar. The focal point of the matter arose from four cases before the High Court in which the appellant represented one of the contesting parties. In those four cases, the Presiding Judge of the High Court made certain adverse observations\/remarks against the appellant. A brief summary of High Court’s remarks in question is as follows:<\/p>\n

Case 1<\/u>. [1]<\/a><\/u> Anguished over ‘suppression of material fact’ by the appellant, the High Court remarked: “The counsel for the petitioner is a seasonal <\/em>(sic seasoned) advocate … he has deliberately created a wrong example for the pious institution.<\/em>“<\/p>\n

Case 2<\/u>. [2]<\/a><\/u> Disapproving appellant’s tactic of ‘wasting court’s time’, the High Court said: “.. the learned counsel for the plaintiff\/appellant … was intentionally attempting to make a mountain of a mole, which .. was a brutal assassination of time … It further reflected that as if it was not an argument for the case but rather for the visitor’s gallery.<\/em>“<\/p>\n

Case 3<\/u>. [3]<\/a><\/u> \u00a0Noting the ‘unacceptable conduct’ of the appellant, the Presiding Judge observed: “… the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in a prior proceeding which was held before this Court … since I had appeared as a counsel on behalf of the defendant\/appellant herein, an attempt was made … to avoid to address of the Second Appeal on its merits before this Court.<\/em>” (sic)<\/p>\n

Case 4<\/u>.[4]<\/a> Expressing displeasure against appellant’s ‘modus operandi’ in placing voluminous record including irrelevant precedents\/judgments running into volumes, at the stage of admission of the petition itself, the High Court, inter alia, remarked: “… 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 record, and making references of them, by quoting excerpts.<\/em>“<\/p>\n

Aggrieved, the appellant approached the Supreme Court for expunging such offending remarks recorded by the High Court against him.<\/p>\n

Contention<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n

The appellant submitted that the offending comments were neither essential nor necessary for the High Court’s verdict in the cases concerned. In any case, those remarks were made without putting him to notice or providing any hearing. Further, such adverse comments will not only undermine the professional reputation of the appellant, but would also impact his standing and practice as a lawyer.<\/p>\n

In addition, it was submitted that the comments may have emanated from personal prejudice and may not be otherwise warranted. It was stated that before his elevation to the Bench, the Presiding Judge concerned was a member of the same Bar as the appellant and both were rival counsel in several contested matters.<\/p>\n

Analysis and Observations<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n

The Supreme Court relied on a catena of judicial precedents on the subject, including State of U.P.<\/em> v. Mohd. Naim<\/em>, AIR 1964 SC 703<\/a>, where Justice S.K. Das laid down three tests to be applied while dealing with the question of expunction of disparaging remarks:<\/p>\n

(i<\/em>) Whether the party whose conduct is in question is before the court or has an opportunity of explaining or defending himself;<\/p>\n

(ii<\/em>) Whether there is evidence\u00a0 on record bearing on that conduct justifying the remarks; and<\/p>\n

(iii<\/em>) Whether it is necessary for the decision of the case, as an integral part thereof, to animadvert on that conduct.<\/p>\n

Discussing the law laid down in earlier cases which has been consistently followed, the Court observed:<\/p>\n

“While it is of fundamental importance in the realm of administration of justice to allow the judges to discharge their functions freely and fearlessly and without interference by anyone, it is equally important for the judges to be exercising restraint and avoid unnecessary remarks on the conduct of the counsel which may have no bearing on the adjudication of the dispute before the Court.<\/em>“<\/p>\n

Considering the adverse comments recorded in the High Court judgments, the Supreme Court was of the view that such remarks could have been avoided as they were unnecessary for deciding the disputes. Moreover, in Court’s opinion, they appeared to be “based on the personal perception of the learned Judge<\/em>“.<\/p>\n

It was apparent that the Judge did not give any opportunity to the appellant to put forth an explanation. The Court stated that the remarks so recorded have cast aspersion on professional integrity of the appellant. Such condemnation of the appellant without giving him an opportunity of being heard would be a negation of principles of audi alteram partem<\/em>. The requisite degree of restraint and sobriety expected in such situations was also found missing in the offending comments.<\/p>\n

Opining that to allow the appellant to suffer would be prejudicial and unjust, the Court said:<\/p>\n

“The tenor of the remarks recorded against the appellant will not only demean him amongst his professional colleagues but may also adversely impact his professional career. If the comments remain unexpunged in the court judgments, it will be a cross that the appellant will have to bear, all his life.<\/em>“<\/p>\n

Decision<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n

The Court concluded that the offending remarks recorded by the Presiding Judge of the High Court against the appellant should not have been recorded in the manner it was done. It was accordingly held that the offending remarks should be recalled to avoid any future harm to appellant’s reputation or his work as a member of the Bar. Order was made accordingly. [Neeraj Garg v. Sarita Rani, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 527<\/b><\/a>, decided on 2-8-2021]<\/p>\n

\n

Tejaswi Pandit, Senior Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.\u00a0 \u00a0<\/span><\/h3>\n
\n

[1]<\/a> WP (M\/S)\u00a0No. 2216\u00a0of\u00a02017\u00a0and WP (M\/S)\u00a0No. 2208\u00a0of\u00a02017, dated 14-11-2017 (Uttaranchal High Court)<\/p>\n

[2]<\/a> SA No. 190\/2019, dated 22-11-2019 (Uttaranchal High Court)<\/p>\n

[3]<\/a> SA\u00a0182\u00a0of\u00a02019,\u00a0dated\u00a012-3-2020 (Uttaranchal High Court)<\/p>\n

[4]<\/a> WP (M\/S)\u00a0519\u00a0of\u00a02019,\u00a0dated 22-2-2021 (Uttaranchal High Court)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Supreme Court: A Division Bench of R.F. Nariman and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ. directed that adverse comments recorded against the appellant\u2500advocate in certain <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67011,"featured_media":154914,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,9],"tags":[2656,2749,3658,29785,5363],"class_list":["post-252199","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-supremecourt","tag-advocate","tag-bar","tag-Judges","tag-law","tag-supreme-court"],"yoast_head":"\nJudges should exercise restraint and avoid unnecessary remarks against conduct of the counsel: SC orders expunging adverse remarks against advocate with 17 yrs of standing at the Bar | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Judges should exercise restraint and avoid unnecessary remarks\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/08\/03\/judges-should-exercise-restraint-and-avoid-unnecessary-remarks\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Judges should exercise restraint and avoid unnecessary remarks against conduct of the counsel: SC orders expunging adverse remarks against advocate with 17 yrs of standing at the Bar\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Judges should exercise restraint and avoid unnecessary remarks\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/08\/03\/judges-should-exercise-restraint-and-avoid-unnecessary-remarks\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2021-08-03T11:30:37+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2021-08-06T05:20:31+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1330\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"887\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/08\/03\/judges-should-exercise-restraint-and-avoid-unnecessary-remarks\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/08\/03\/judges-should-exercise-restraint-and-avoid-unnecessary-remarks\/\",\"name\":\"Judges should exercise restraint and avoid unnecessary remarks against conduct of the counsel: SC orders expunging adverse remarks against advocate with 17 yrs of standing at the Bar | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/08\/03\/judges-should-exercise-restraint-and-avoid-unnecessary-remarks\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/08\/03\/judges-should-exercise-restraint-and-avoid-unnecessary-remarks\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2021-08-03T11:30:37+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2021-08-06T05:20:31+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\"},\"description\":\"Judges should exercise restraint and avoid unnecessary remarks\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/08\/03\/judges-should-exercise-restraint-and-avoid-unnecessary-remarks\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/08\/03\/judges-should-exercise-restraint-and-avoid-unnecessary-remarks\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/08\/03\/judges-should-exercise-restraint-and-avoid-unnecessary-remarks\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg\",\"width\":1330,\"height\":887},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/08\/03\/judges-should-exercise-restraint-and-avoid-unnecessary-remarks\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Judges should exercise restraint and avoid unnecessary remarks against conduct of the counsel: SC orders expunging adverse remarks against advocate with 17 yrs of standing at the Bar\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\",\"name\":\"Editor\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Editor\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Judges should exercise restraint and avoid unnecessary remarks against conduct of the counsel: SC orders expunging adverse remarks against advocate with 17 yrs of standing at the Bar | SCC Times","description":"Judges should exercise restraint and avoid unnecessary remarks","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/08\/03\/judges-should-exercise-restraint-and-avoid-unnecessary-remarks\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Judges should exercise restraint and avoid unnecessary remarks against conduct of the counsel: SC orders expunging adverse remarks against advocate with 17 yrs of standing at the Bar","og_description":"Judges should exercise restraint and avoid unnecessary remarks","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/08\/03\/judges-should-exercise-restraint-and-avoid-unnecessary-remarks\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2021-08-03T11:30:37+00:00","article_modified_time":"2021-08-06T05:20:31+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1330,"height":887,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Editor","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Editor","Est. reading time":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/08\/03\/judges-should-exercise-restraint-and-avoid-unnecessary-remarks\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/08\/03\/judges-should-exercise-restraint-and-avoid-unnecessary-remarks\/","name":"Judges should exercise restraint and avoid unnecessary remarks against conduct of the counsel: SC orders expunging adverse remarks against advocate with 17 yrs of standing at the Bar | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/08\/03\/judges-should-exercise-restraint-and-avoid-unnecessary-remarks\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/08\/03\/judges-should-exercise-restraint-and-avoid-unnecessary-remarks\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg","datePublished":"2021-08-03T11:30:37+00:00","dateModified":"2021-08-06T05:20:31+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe"},"description":"Judges should exercise restraint and avoid unnecessary remarks","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/08\/03\/judges-should-exercise-restraint-and-avoid-unnecessary-remarks\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/08\/03\/judges-should-exercise-restraint-and-avoid-unnecessary-remarks\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/08\/03\/judges-should-exercise-restraint-and-avoid-unnecessary-remarks\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg","width":1330,"height":887},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/08\/03\/judges-should-exercise-restraint-and-avoid-unnecessary-remarks\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Judges should exercise restraint and avoid unnecessary remarks against conduct of the counsel: SC orders expunging adverse remarks against advocate with 17 yrs of standing at the Bar"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe","name":"Editor","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Editor"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":252532,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/08\/11\/252532\/","url_meta":{"origin":252199,"position":0},"title":"SCC Online Weekly Rewind Episode 22 ft. Bhumika Indulia","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"August 11, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"SCC Online Weekly Rewind Episode 22 ft. Bhumika Indulia, Associate Editor is out now. The written episode along with the video episode can be watched and read below. https:\/\/youtu.be\/7G3CmHgsnOM SUPREME COURT Emergency arbitrator\u2019s award is referable to S. 17(1) of Indian Arbitration Act; enforceable under S. 17(2): Scopious analysis of\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "SCC Times Newsflash"","block_context":{"text":"SCC Times Newsflash","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/watch-now-2\/scc-times-newsflash\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/08\/MicrosoftTeams-image-138.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/08\/MicrosoftTeams-image-138.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/08\/MicrosoftTeams-image-138.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/08\/MicrosoftTeams-image-138.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/08\/MicrosoftTeams-image-138.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":266954,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/05\/17\/comrades-of-the-justice-brigade-separated-by-authority-united-for-a-common-cause\/","url_meta":{"origin":252199,"position":1},"title":"Comrades of the \u201cJustice\u201d Brigade: Separated by Authority, United for a Common Cause","author":"Editor","date":"May 17, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"by Abhishek Goyal*","rel":"","context":"In "Op Eds"","block_context":{"text":"Op Eds","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/op-ed\/legal-analysis\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/05\/MicrosoftTeams-image-144.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/05\/MicrosoftTeams-image-144.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/05\/MicrosoftTeams-image-144.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/05\/MicrosoftTeams-image-144.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/05\/MicrosoftTeams-image-144.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":269812,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/07\/08\/jk-and-ladakh-hc-for-proper-administration-of-justice-judges-should-not-make-derogatory-remarks-against-persons-unless-such-censuring-is-necessary-for-the-case\/","url_meta":{"origin":252199,"position":2},"title":"J&K and Ladakh HC| For proper administration of justice, Judges should not make derogatory remarks against persons, unless such censuring is necessary for the case","author":"Editor","date":"July 8, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cHigher the forum and greater the powers, the greater is the need for restraint\u201d Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court: While allowing the instant petition wherein the aggrieved party invoked the jurisdiction of the Court under Section 482 CrPC, seeking to expunge the adverse remarks, observations and directions made\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/JK-HC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/JK-HC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/JK-HC.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/JK-HC.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/JK-HC.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":222887,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/12\/05\/justice-arun-mishra-asks-bar-members-to-let-go-off-arrogance-after-sc-aor-association-requests-him-to-be-more-patient-with-lawyers\/","url_meta":{"origin":252199,"position":3},"title":"Justice Arun Mishra asks Bar members to let go off arrogance after SC AoR Association requests him to be more patient with lawyers","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"December 5, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: Two days after a senior lawyer walked out of his courtroom when warned of contempt, Justice Arun Mishra on Thursday said \"arrogance\" should go from some members of the bar, otherwise, it will become very difficult for the judiciary to perform its functions. \"Arrogance should go from some\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Hot Off The Press"","block_context":{"text":"Hot Off The Press","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/news\/hot_off_the_press\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":277998,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/11\/24\/no-prohibition-on-advocate-to-represent-different-company-in-separate-proceedings-filed-under-section-7-ibc-nclat\/","url_meta":{"origin":252199,"position":4},"title":"No prohibition on advocate to represent different company in separate proceedings filed under Section 7 IBC: NCLAT","author":"Editor","date":"November 24, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"\u00a0 \u00a0 National Company Law Appellate Tribunal: While dealing with a matter seeking expunging the adverse remake made against the appellant, a bench comprising of Ashok Bhushan*, J., Dr. Alok Srivastava and Barun Mitra (Technical Members), held that there is no prohibition according to the statutory provision governing appearance of\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"NCLAT","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/11\/MicrosoftTeams-image-279-1.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":61771,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/08\/16\/appeal-seeking-disclosure-of-criteria-to-designate-an-advocate-as-senior-advocate-in-supreme-court-dismissed\/","url_meta":{"origin":252199,"position":5},"title":"Appeal seeking disclosure of criteria to designate an advocate as \u201cSenior Advocate\u201d in Supreme Court, dismissed","author":"Sucheta","date":"August 16, 2016","format":false,"excerpt":"Central Information Commission (CIC):\u00a0While observing that the opinion of the Chief Justice and Judges is the only criteria to designate an advocate as \u201cSenior Advocate\u201d and no particular procedure has been prescribed for it, CIC dismissed an appeal filed by a person seeking publication of procedure followed by Supreme Court\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/central_information_commission.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/central_information_commission.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/central_information_commission.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/central_information_commission.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/central_information_commission.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/252199","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67011"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=252199"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/252199\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/154914"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=252199"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=252199"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=252199"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}