n a dramatic turn of events, the Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) on Friday (11th December) put an unsigned Judgment on hold and granted another opportunity to the Counsel appearing for the respondent to put forth her further arguments in the matter. The Bench of Justice N. Kirubakaran and Justice B. Pugalendhi gave this order as the Counsel (for the respondent) made allegations against the Court stating that the Court had
Lawyer Alleges That Court Has Done Injustice: Madras High Court Puts Unsigned Order On Hold, Gives Another Opportunity To Argue
13 Dec 2020 7:20 PM
SHARE THIS –
Madras High Court
In a dramatic turn of events, the Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) on Friday (11th December)put an unsigned Judgment on hold and granted another opportunity to the Counsel appearing for the respondent to put forth her further arguments in the matter.
The Bench of Justice N. Kirubakaran and Justice B. Pugalendhi gave this order as the Counsel (for the respondent) made allegations against the Court stating that the Court had done injustice.
The allegations by the Counsel were made after the pronouncement of the Judgment, after knowing that the matter had gone against her client
She (the Counsel) submitted before the Court that it was very unfortunate that the Court passed the Judgment in the instant Writ Appeal “without hearing her arguments and she was under the impression that the Writ Appeal would be dismissed.”
While noting that the outcry of the Counsel amounts to contempt of Court and also needs a reference to the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry for taking disciplinary proceedings against her, the Court took into consideration the fact that she was having a grievance, that she needed to be heard further in detail.
Further, the Court said,
“This Court feels that since we have not signed the order yet, this Court will provide one more opportunity to the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent to put forth her further arguments in this matter.”
“Whatever may be the proceedings or the result of the proceedings, a Senior Member of the Bar ought not have stooped down to the level of making allegations against this Court.”
Further, the Court said,
“We are pained by the representation made by the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent, who was a leader of the bar for some time and also a Senior Member. If this kind of attitude is going to be encouraged, it will send a wrong message to the Juniors, who are all watching the Court proceedings.“
The matter has been put for further hearing on 14th December.
Shah Alam is the younger brother of former AAP councillor and Prime Accused in the NE Delhi Riots Case, Tahir Hussain.
While questioning the credibility of the witness in the case, the Karkardooma Court (Delhi) on Wednesday (09th December)granted bail to Shah Alam, the younger brother of former Aam Aadmi Party councillor and Prime Accused in the NE Delhi Riots Case, Tahir Hussain, in one of the cases related to the riots.
The Additional Sessions Judge Vinod Yadav disposed of the bail plea of Shah Alam, while questioning the beat constables as to why they waited till 06.03.2020 (when their statements U/s 161 Cr.P.C was recorded by the IO) to name the applicant (Shah Alam), when they had categorically seen and identified the applicant indulging in riots on the date of incident, i.e 25.02.2020.
The Court said,
“Being police official(s), what stopped them from reporting the matter then and there in the PS or to bring the same in the knowledge of higher police officers. This casts a serious doubt on the credibility of these witnesses.”
Importantly, the Court said,
“The prosecution has not been able to point out the role of applicant being different/distinct to the aforesaid co-accused persons, except for the fact that applicant is younger brother of principal accused Tahir Hussain.”
Notably, the Court also remarked,
“He cannot be made to incarcerate in jail for infinity merely on account of the fact that he is younger brother of principal accused Tahir Hussain or that other persons who were part of the riotous mob have to be identified and arrested in the matter.”
The instant Case (FIR No.80/2020) is a “general case” about the use of the building of principal accused Tahir Hussain by the rioters as well as commission of acts of arson and looting of public and private property(ies).
In this backdrop, the Court said,
“In this case, only one witness has been added. I have been taken through his complaint, and upon a perusal of the endorsement made on the complaint, it appears that the name of this witness has been kept deliberately in this case, as there was no other independent witness.”
Further, considering the facts and circumstances of the case in totality, applicant Shah Alam was admitted to bail in the matter on his furnishing a Personal Bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Ld.CMM/Ld.Illaka MM/Ld.Duty MM.