Special Appeal Maintainable If Single Judge's Order Relates To Authority Acting Without Statutory Appellate Jurisdiction: Allahabad High Court Recall Of Witness For Cross-Examination Permissible On Newly Framed Issue Post-Remand Even If Disposal Timeline Is Fixed: Karnataka High Court Litigant Cannot Overcome Law Of Limitation By Shifting Blame On Counsel Through Inconsistent Stands: Madras High Court Cross-Cases Cannot Be Clubbed If Co-Accused In Complaint Case Is Absconding & Complainant Delayed Process: Allahabad High Court Cross-Cases Cannot Be Clubbed If Co-Accused In Complaint Case Is Absconding & Complainant Delayed Process: Allahabad High Court Preventive Detention Not Warranted If Person Can Be Dealt With Under Ordinary Laws; No Effort To Arrest In Pending Cases: Supreme Court Accused Languishing In Jail For 9 Years Deserves Bail; Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 Violated: Supreme Court Election Disputes Must Be Resolved Expeditiously; Long Stays Render Adjudication A Mockery Of Justice: Madras High Court Delhi High Court Suspends LOC, Permits Businessman To Travel Abroad For Healthcare Conferences; Cites Roots In Society & Past Compliance Section 138 NI Act Complaint Not Maintainable By Third Party Who Is Neither Payee Nor Holder In Due Course: Allahabad High Court Writ Petition Cannot Be Dismissed On ‘Forum Non Conveniens’ If Respondent's Office Is Within Court's Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Supreme Court Doubts 'Sajjan Singh' Ruling; Refers To Larger Bench Whether Third Judge Can Re-examine Unanimous Findings Under Section 392 CrPC SARFAESI Sale Vitiated If Balance 75% Bid Amount Is Paid Beyond 15 Days Without Written Extension Agreement: Supreme Court Delhi High Court Can't Refuse Writ Petition Against BSF Dismissal Merely Because Cause Of Action Arose Outside Delhi: Supreme Court Private Rights Must Yield To Public Interest: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs Removal Of Encroachments On Public Road Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Re-Agitate Factual Disputes Or Seek Re-Hearing On Merits: Allahabad High Court Recovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act Vitiated If Police Already Present At Spot Before Arrival Of Panch Witnesses: Bombay High Court Mere Non-Compliance Or Delay In Procedure Under Section 52A NDPS Act Is An Irregularity, Not An Illegality Entitling Accused To Bail: Calcutta High Court Recovery Of Weapon Used In Commission Of Offence Not A Sine Qua Non For Conviction If Ocular Evidence Is Corroborated: Allahabad High Court Seized Vehicles Shouldn't Be Kept Idle To Rot In Police Stations, Utility Vanishes Due To Stagnation: Karnataka High Court Or 39 CPC | Trial Court Erred In Dismissing Injunction Application Despite Respondent's 'No Objection' To Restraining Share Transfer: Gauhati High Court Issuing NBW Merely For Absence Of Accused Already On Bail Is Improper; Liberty Cannot Be Dealt With Lightly: Orissa High Court 138 NI | Expert Examination Of Disputed Documents Essential For Just Adjudication If Complainant Denies Handwriting & Signatures: Rajasthan High Court Order 41 Rule 27 CPC Cannot Be Invoked To Fill Lacunae In Evidence If Party Voluntarily Closed Evidence In Trial Court: Delhi High Court

Calcutta High Court Emphasizes Judicial Restraint and Urges Respectful Advocacy

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment, the Calcutta High Court underscored the significance of judicial restraint and called for advocates to exercise professionalism and respect in court proceedings. The Hon'ble Justice Bibek Chaudhuri, delivering the judgment, stated, "Judicial restraint and discipline are as necessary to the orderly administration of justice as they are to the effectiveness of the army." The case pertains to a land dispute where an octogenarian petitioner alleged forgery and fraud by the respondents in obtaining his signature on a fabricated document. The court took into consideration the petitioner's failing health and directed the trial court to expedite the hearing of the complainant's application under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C within one week. Additionally, if necessary, the court ordered the recording of the complainant's statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C within the same timeframe.

This judgment highlights the court's commitment to upholding the principles of justice while maintaining decorum in the courtroom. It emphasizes the need for judges to be impartial and advocates to conduct themselves respectfully during proceedings. The court's directive aims to strike a balance between administrative challenges and the humanitarian considerations surrounding the petitioner's health. By urging respectful advocacy, the court seeks to ensure that litigants receive a fair hearing and that justice is not only done but seen to be done.

The judgment references legal principles from previous cases, including Vishwanathan Vs. Abdul Wahid (1963 Supreme Court 1) and A.M. Mathur V Pramod Kumar Gupta [(1990) 2 SCC 533], further reinforcing the importance of judicial conduct and restraint. This decision serves as a reminder to legal professionals of their duty to maintain the integrity of the judicial process and uphold the rights of litigants.

The Calcutta High Court's ruling not only addresses the specific case at hand but also sets a precedent for future proceedings, emphasizing the need for mutual respect between judges, advocates, and litigants. By promoting a respectful and dignified courtroom environment, the court aims to foster public confidence in the judicial system and ensure justice is delivered fairly and impartially.

Date of Decision: 12th June, 2023

 Atindra Nath Mondal vs The State of West Bengal & Ors.

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Atindra-Nath-Mondal-vs-State-12-June-Cal.-HC1.pdf"]

Latest Legal News