Kec International. Vs. M.V. jetta and anr.

Kec International. vs M.V. "jetta" and anr.

Type Court Judgment Court Gujarat Decided Jan 19, 2011

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/915708

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/915708
Court: Gujarat High Court
Judge: R.S.Garg, J.
Decided On: Jan 19, 2011
Case Number: MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION No. 53 of 2006.
Subject: Electricity

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

[Aftab Alam ; R.M. Lodha, JJ.] The appellant- University on March 1, 1996 issued an advertisement for filling up the posts of Deputy Registrar and Assistant Registrar by direct recruitment. The minimum qualification prescribed for appointment as Assistant Registrar was as under:-Respondent No.1, who was an employee...

Key legal issue: Electricity

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Kec International.

Advocate MR AS VAKIL, Adv.

Respondent

M.V. "jetta" and anr.

Excerpt

.....it was, accordingly, submitted that respondent no.1 was ineligible for appointment to the post of assistant registrar. the division bench found and held that respondent no.1 was not eligible to be considered for the post of deputy registrar and, hence, rejected his case in so far that post is concerned. coming, however, to the post of assistant registrar, the division bench took the view that selection committee had not assigned any reason for putting respondent nos. 4 and 5 above respondent no.1 in the select list. no material has been produced before us to show that it is the selection committee which upon assessment of merit of the appellant and respondent nos. 4 and 5, found appellant was less meritorious than the respondent nos. 4 and 5. in the first place the division bench overlooked that according to the statutory eligibility criterion only a section officer or a p.a.-cum-stenographer was eligible to be considered for appointment as assistant registrar and respondent no.1 was a head assistant. the division bench seems to have overlooked that while respondent nos. 4 and 5 were at ranks iv and v in the select list, respondent no.1 was at rank xiii and by brining him at par with respondent nos. 4 and 5, the division bench clearly ignored the claims of the seven candidates who figured in between from rank vi to xii and who were above respondent no.1......to avoid the court, then they must take the chief justice of the high court in confidence. i dismissed number of cases on 23/2/2006. the lawyers who were otherwise boycotting the court, after realizing that their resolution has backfired and their cases have been dismissed for want of prosecution, started appearing in the court with a submission that they were busy before some other courts, the fact i did record in the proceedings of the very same day.6. be that as it may, if i start behaving in a manner which is not known to law or i start becoming a judge of my own cause, it would be something contrary to law. the bar association relied upon one side of the picture and painted my picture black. with all its efforts in the said press note, they tarnished my image in the eyes of the public, but being a judge of the high court, having taken oath to discharge the duties in accordance with law without fear or favour, without affection or illwill, i have to give proper opportunity to the lawyers who did their best to tarnish my image.7. speaking personally for myself, i will be absolutely justified in holding that the lawyers were avoiding the court, they were boycotting the court and purposefully did not appear in the court and after finding that their cases have been dismissed, they started coming with false and lame excuse that they were busy with some other courts.8. if i make any order in these very proceedings, then i will be again made an accused that i am revengeful and i am acting contrary to the settled tenets of law. the justice must not only be done but it should appear to have been done. i will only pose one question that lawyers only are protected souls and judges of the high court are class ii citizens.9. let the matter be placed before my lord the chief justice so that it can be heard by some other judge.

Full Judgment

1. The present is an application seeking restoration of Admiralty Suit No.1 of 2002 which was dismissed for want of prosecution and absence of the counsel on 23/2/2006. In support of the application, it is contended that the counsel was busy in some other court, therefore, he could not attend the present matter when it was called out for hearing.

2. It would be noteworthy that in relation to an incident dtd.17/2/2006 when mobile phone of Mr.S.B. Vakil started ringing in the Court, this Court issued a notice of contempt to Mr.S.B. Vakil after recording that his mobile phone was ringing and he had expressed no regret or remorse. It appears that thereafter, the matter was discussed in the Bar Association and a resolution to boycott the proceedings of this Court on 22^nd and 23^rd February, 2006 was passed. The said resolution under the signature of the President of the Bar Association was widely communicated to all the news papers and the said press note contained many things which were beyond the resolution. The character assassination of the Judge was the prime object of the said press note.

3. On 22/2/2006, the lawyers practicing in this Court did not appear in Company Application No.46 of 2006, M/s.Jai Mahakalay Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. ICICI Bank Ltd. and ors. I recorded details regarding the incident, conduct exhibited by Mr.S.B. Vakil, advocate and that, he was not expressing any regret or remorse. I also made my position clear in relation to the other allegations, which the President of the Bar Association had made against me and had widely circulated. On 22/2/2006, I did not dismiss even a single case even when the lawyers were not present in the Court.

4. After explaining my position, I thought that the lawyers would take order in its true spirit and would attend the Court on 23/2/2006.

5. On 23/2/2006, some of the lawyers did not appear in the matters. Therefore, feeling myself bound by the judgement of the Supreme Court which clearly pronounces that the lawyers have no right to go for a boycott or strike and that if the lawyers were to avoid the court, then they must take the Chief Justice of the High Court in confidence. I dismissed number of cases on 23/2/2006. The lawyers who were otherwise boycotting the court, after realizing that their resolution has backfired and their cases have been dismissed for want of prosecution, started appearing in the court with a submission that they were busy before some other courts, the fact I did record in the proceedings of the very same day.

6. Be that as it may, if I start behaving in a manner which is not known to law or I start becoming a judge of my own cause, it would be something contrary to law. The Bar Association relied upon one side of the picture and painted my picture black. With all its efforts in the said press note, they tarnished my image in the eyes of the public, but being a judge of the High Court, having taken oath to discharge the duties in accordance with law without fear or favour, without affection or illwill, I have to give proper opportunity to the lawyers who did their best to tarnish my image.

7. Speaking personally for myself, I will be absolutely justified in holding that the lawyers were avoiding the court, they were boycotting the court and purposefully did not appear in the court and after finding that their cases have been dismissed, they started coming with false and lame excuse that they were busy with some other courts.

8. If I make any order in these very proceedings, then I will be again made an accused that I am revengeful and I am acting contrary to the settled tenets of law. The justice must not only be done but it should appear to have been done. I will only pose one question that lawyers only are protected souls and Judges of the High Court are Class II citizens.

9. Let the matter be placed before My Lord the Chief Justice so that it can be heard by some other Judge.

Same Court & Year Gujarat · 2011 Same Parties Kec International. vs M.V. "jetta" and anr. Same Subject Electricity Same Judge R.S.Garg, J.

Electricity