Be Gentle In Dealing With Advocates, Don't Take Up Cudgels With Bar : Supreme Court To DRT Judge
The Supreme Court on Tuesday (January 16) dismissed a Special Leave Petition filed by the presiding officer of the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Chandigarh bench against the adverse remarks and directions passed against him by the Punjab and Haryana High Court on a writ petition filed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal Advocates Association.In the impugned order passed by the High Court on November...
The Supreme Court on Tuesday (January 16) dismissed a Special Leave Petition filed by the presiding officer of the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Chandigarh bench against the adverse remarks and directions passed against him by the Punjab and Haryana High Court on a writ petition filed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal Advocates Association.
In the impugned order passed by the High Court on November 3 last year, directions were issued for the recording of the proceedings before the DRT Presiding Officer by the dedicated personnel provided by the Union Government. The High Court also directed that the Presiding Officer should not insist on the deposits of costs imposed for the restoration of any applications since October 2022. The HC further directed the Union Government to provide facilities for hybrid hearings before the Tribunal.
The bench comprising the Chief Justice of India, DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra refused to interfere in the matter. The CJI verbally observed that it was important for the petitioner to be kind and sensitive towards the circumstances of the lawyers and not take up 'cudgels' against the bar association.
“Why are you aggrieved, you're a presiding officer… you should never enter this fray as a presiding officer and the High Court has directed correctly, the Union of India to provide the necessary infrastructure to provide hybrid hearings, recording of proceedings to be carried out by dedicated personnel to be provided by UOI…instead of taking up cudgels with bar like this, you are a presiding officer in Chandigarh, do your duty, be a little kind to everybody around and you will get a lot of respect from the bar. Nobody is saying that you have to decide in favour of anybody but deal in a little gentle way, that's all that the lawyers expect”, CJI told the petitioner's lawyer.
Mr. Daya Krishan Sharma (Advocate on Record), the counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner explained that the main prayer of the Bar Association before the High Court was to have an enquiry against him, which has been completed by the Chairman of DRAT. The petitioner now prays that the said litigation before the High Court should come to an end since the Report from the DRAT Chairman is now placed before the Search-cum-Selection committee and nothing remains before the High Court.
Advocate on Record Siddharth Batra appearing for the Advocates Association submitted that in the previous round of litigation before the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court had asked the petitioner to have a positive atmosphere and restore the cases, yet the petitioner was not adhering to the orders of the Court. He expressed concerns over the costs that are being imposed by the petitioner in the DRT cases “For not filing the written statements 20,000 Rs- (cost imposed), cost is going to 2 lac rupees my lords, where will the members of the Bar go?”.
The court dismissed the SLP, observing that it was not inclined to interfere under Article 136 of the Constitution.
Previous litigation history
In October 2022, the Debt Recovery Tribunal Bar Association filed a writ petition with the High Court, accusing the Presiding Officer of harassment towards counsels representing both financial institutions and borrowers. In protest, the Bar Association initiated a strike on October 26, 2022, refusing to appear before the said Presiding Officer. Despite the High Court disapproving of the Bar Association's decision to strike, it issued an interim order to prevent the 'wholesale dismissal' of cases currently under the officer's jurisdiction.
In light of the 'serious allegations' and the 'strained' relationship between the Officer and the Bar Association, a Division Bench of the High Court issued a directive preventing the Officer from making any unfavourable decisions in the ongoing cases under his jurisdiction until November 30, 2022.
Challenging the High Court's directive, M.M. Dhonchak, the Presiding Officer in question, filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court in November 2022 against the High Court's order.
On 02.12.2022, the Supreme Court observed that an order retraining a judicial member from adjudicating matters is not sustainable in law. In view of the same, the Apex Court modified the High Court's order and permitted Mr. Dhonchak to proceed with hearing matters before him on merits. It was advised that being a part of the justice delivery system both the Bar and the Bench maintain cordial atmosphere. On 12th December, 2022, the Apex Court had disposed of the matter asking the Chairperson of DRAT to take an appropriate decision independently.
Case Details : M.M. DHONCHAK vs. DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL BAR ASSOCIATION SLP(C) No. 027317 - / 2023