[ad_1]
Supreme Court on adverse orders.
New Delhi:
The Supreme Court has frowned on the trend of making allegations against judicial officers when adverse orders are made against a litigant and said if this continued it would end up demoralizing judges.
The court rejected requests to transfer the proceedings pending in a court in Dhaulpur in Rajasthan to a court in Noida in Uttar Pradesh.
A panel of Judges MR Shah and Judge Krishna Murari noted that one of the grounds for seeking the proceedings is that the petitioners believe they are not getting a fair trial and that the respondents, being “big local caps”, can influence the court there.
“We disagree with such a position and the ground on which the proceedings are sought. Just because certain orders are made on the judicial side (in this case in the enforcement proceedings) which may be against the petitioners, one cannot say the court that made the order was influenced,” the bench said.
He said that if the petitioners were aggrieved by a court order, the proper remedy would be to challenge it in a higher court.
The higher court said that just because some adverse orders are made against the plaintiffs by the court, the orders on the judicial side cannot be said to have come under influence.
“Nowadays there is a tendency to make such allegations against bailiffs whenever orders are made against a litigant and the orders are not appreciated by the litigant concerned. We advise against such a practice”, the court said in its September order. 2.
“If such a practice continues, it will end up demoralizing the judicial officer. In fact, such an allegation can be considered as obstructing the administration of justice”, declared the formation.
He said another ground raised was that when the warrant issued by the Executing Court was requested to be executed, a false criminal FIR was filed and therefore there are apprehensions over the life of the applicants.
The bench noted that if the petitioners are aggrieved by the FIR, the remedy would have been to approach to quash the same.
“There is no established reason to transfer any of the requested proceedings,” the bench said.
(Except for the title, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)
[ad_2]
Source link
