{"id":187491,"date":"2009-09-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-09-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/international-society-for-vs-international-society-for-on-15-september-2009"},"modified":"2017-05-08T09:26:49","modified_gmt":"2017-05-08T03:56:49","slug":"international-society-for-vs-international-society-for-on-15-september-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/international-society-for-vs-international-society-for-on-15-september-2009","title":{"rendered":"International Society For … vs International Society For … on 15 September, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
International Society For … vs International Society For … on 15 September, 2009<\/div>\n
Author: K.L.Manjunath & B.V.Nagarathna<\/div>\n
BETWEEN:\n\n1.\n\nIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BAN\n\nDATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF sEP'rEMBER_,H:;?'o(\u00a79\"rI'*5 V' \"~ V.\n\nPRESENT\n\nTHE HON'BLE MR.._JUsTIcE-K;'L;1~e.4tA1\u20ac1,JuNAm   \n\nAND _\nTI-IE HON'BLE MRS.JUST_ICE\u00bbB.VINAGARA'I'HVNA' \n\nMISC.CVL.NO. 140.57\/2009 --RFA,No.\u00a742~1--.\/2609\n\nINTERNA'I'iON1\"'L.-SOC.IE'.\u20acY\"FOR_V  ~ \nKRISHNA_.CONS\u00a3CI'OUS1\\I_ESS, -a society\nregistered ungder the Sd'\u00e91f'jeties...Act;; 1860. as\nalso Bombay '}'\"'(1\u00a7:)1ig: Trusts Ac.1;_,V @950.\n\nhavirig itVS'0fl\u00a2iC\u20ac  Ha_re._Krishn\u00e9i Land. Juhu,\nMumbai\u00a2-49Va'IS1d'=also haV1i1g'its branch office\nat Hare Krishna'Hi11,SCh0rd..=Road, Rajajinagar,\nBar1galo'1--'\u20ac*10.   O \n\n. B'h;iniar.Dasa.\"'M_ajDr V\"\n.\u00ab Krishna Goswami, Major\n\nV 2  3.v4a'bDv\u00e9:t'a.::'e having their office at\n\n\" Hare Krisiijmfal Land, Juhu, Mu:mbai--49\n\n  (1\"3y'si~:. UDAYA HOLLA, SRCOUNSEL\n_  \n\" M.V.JEEVAN KUMAR.)\n\n1.\n\nJerya  Swamy, Major\n\n_ ISKCON, Mayapur, Dt.Nadia, W.BengaE\n\n APPELLANTS\nFOR M\/ S LEX NEXUS\n\nSHASHIKIRAN SHETFY, D.R. RAVISHANKAR &\n\nA AND:\n\nW?)\n\nINTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR \u00e9\nKRISHNA CONSCIOUSNESS, a society\n\n\n\nregistered under the Karnataka Societies\nregistration Act, 1960 and oiaiming to have\nits registered office at Hare Krishna Hiii,\nChord Road, Rajajinagar, Bangaiore-10,\nrepresented by its alleged Secretary\n\nStoka Krishna Das.\n\n. Vinay Karlo aka Vibhav Krishna 1:)a\u00e9'a~\u00ab. '_ \n\nMajor \nFather's name not known '\n\nAshok Kumar Gupta\nMajor\nFather's name not known\n\nB.Kiran\n\nMajor \n\nFather's name ;iot__  ' V. \n\nSudhir    \nMajor    . \nFather'_s__na\"me\" 'i'I-Es?  V' ''\n\nRespondents 2' 35-5 R\/oi' '<\/pre>\n
I o1’oss}Sripuram;’  ”\n<\/p>\n
Sheshdripnrarn, “Ba11ga1oi;e-20
\nSasvaishvaryailasa
\nESi{_CON, Hare Krishna Land,<\/p>\n
1 0_(_}*Feet new scheme’ Road.\n<\/p>\n
V’ ‘Coimbai;oorn,’Tfamiinadu.\n<\/p>\n
6.<\/p>\n
.Sa’i1ra”i1ishw’aQry’a Dasa,<\/p>\n
ISKCOISL ‘ ‘ ~
\nCombatore “C entre,
\nHarekrishna Land.\n<\/p>\n
‘ .100 Feet New Scheme Road,
\n* Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu<\/p>\n
 __ . Registrar of Societies,
\n” .. _..Karnataka State.\n<\/p>\n
32 Jamuna Complex, 5″‘ Main Road, I
\nGandhinagar, Banga1ore–09<\/p>\n
State of Karnataka,
\nRepresented by ;\n<\/p>\n
The Commissioner ofPo1ice,<\/p>\n
The Commissioner of Police,
\nInfantry Road, Bangalore–O1
\n. . RESPONDENTS<\/p>\n
(By Sri. MATHAI M.PAI KEDAY, SRCOUNSEL F’OlV?~=__M\/S
\nCHALAPATHY & SRINIVAS FOR C\/R1, AMARNATH S.I_MIjIA<\/p>\n
FOR R6, V.I-LRON FOR M\/S LEX PLEXUS FOR R1]  C   <\/p>\n
This MISC. CVL. is \ufb01led under Section–jl’51…gof ~ CPC1
\npraying that Hon’ble Mr.Just1ce K.L.Manj_unath Vnriay be ._
\npleased to recuse himself fro1_I_1….. the jben”c’h:g healing’
\nRFA.No.421\/2009 for the ends of justice and”.consr;_ienee.” ‘ H A<\/p>\n
This MlSC.CVL having been lheard. ancixfelserveciy <\/p>\n
Orders on this day, NAGARAI?rlN–J\u00a7. J, made the’V_foleleoe.2ingi–<\/p>\n
\noRD\u00a7aau2'RCl\nThe prayer made    by respondent\n<\/pre>\n
No.1 in the appeal is thatEion’bled&1l(lr.’;T1istiepe”VK.L.Manjunath<\/p>\n
reeuse  the appeal in the
\ninterest Vofjtistice  go’o.d”eonscience.<\/p>\n
2. Before ueonsidering the said prayer, it is necessary to<\/p>\n
 V. ‘”\u20ac_’~\u20ac’f  the faetual  leading up to the filing of the said<\/p>\n
 apyiiicmong – ”\n<\/p>\n
3. A-__lFor-  sake of convenience the parties shall be<\/p>\n
 –  ‘referred t,o3in terms of their status in the appeal.<\/p>\n
: This appeal is \ufb01led by defendant Nos.1 to 4<\/span><\/p>\n
 Challenging the Judgment and Decree dated 17.4.2009<\/p>\n
it passed in O.S.No.7924\/2001 by the IX Addl.City Civil &<\/p>\n
Sessions Judge, Bangalore. The said suit was instituted by-<\/p>\n
3<\/span><\/p>\n
the plaintiff \/ respondent No. 1 herein against<\/p>\n
defendant\/appellants for a declaration that the Executive<\/p>\n
Committee of Bureau of the first appellant\/Society <\/p>\n
bar or authority to remove the President orfany.-a ‘<\/p>\n
Bearers of the respondent No. 1 and itsettemples ovrutotv eXercise’i’._p V<\/p>\n
control over the possession of the pro’per:tyl  <\/p>\n
No. 1 or administrative  the
\ndeclaration that plaintiff thenowner.  No.1
\nof ‘A’, ‘1;3= and ‘C’ schedule”–propertiies,’.as–Van:independent legal
\nentity and for P\ufb01\ufb01\ufb01anent’  ‘$1031 and 11*”<\/p>\n
respondent to   eiterclisellllthe statutory and<\/p>\n
regulatcgitifllpowevrs    in them. The said suit
\nwas decreed \u00abin ‘:_j\u00bbaggrieved by the said Judgment<\/p>\n
and Decree, tdefelndaint Al-‘E_os:”l to 4 have preferred this appeal.<\/p>\n
 5. ..\u00ab\u00a7.Misc.Cvl.l\\\u00a7o;.1Q216\/2009 was filed by the appellants<\/p>\n
 seeking _Veariy:hearing of the appeal, in View of the direction<\/p>\n
giVeii._by”the.__Ape\u00a7t Court in Contempt Petition (c)492\/2004<\/p>\n
V . in Civil  i\\’\u00a3o.5657\/2002 to the trial court to dispose of<\/p>\n
 suithir August 2008 on a day-today basis considering<\/p>\n
 the”‘subject matter of the suit. On 19.6.2009 when the<\/p>\n
  ~~appeai was posted for admission, the appeal was admitted<\/p>\n
V and taking note of the submission on both sides, the appeal<\/p>\n
92<\/span><\/p>\n
.a\/\u00b0.\n<\/p>\n
M6″\n<\/p>\n
” 1. RFA 421\/O9 is pending before Justice
\nK.L.I\\\/Ianjunath.\n<\/p>\n
2. Parties in RFA -421\/O9 are ISKCON Murnbai<\/p>\n
Vs. ISKCON, Bangalore, ~j  \u00bb<\/p>\n
3. Above picture shows close association off <\/p>\n
Justice K.L.1\\\/Ianjunath and receiVing_gifts’*atV <\/p>\n
the premises of 1SKCON Bar.I.galo_re. I<\/p>\n
4. Inspite of having close assocliatiolnt      ‘<\/p>\n
from 2003 and continue of receiving _ . . A
\ngifts,..,..,: Justice K.L.’M_anjunati: is still.<\/p>\n
hearing the above RFA 4’21\/O9, for .re’asoins\ufb017_ <\/p>\n
best known to\n<\/p>\n
5. Morally and ethic’aiiy isxit   <\/p>\n
6. AS a honestVJudge  to the
\nhigh rep’uta’iion=:of Justice K..L.Man}unath, is
\nhe right injhearing  this rnatterat all ???<\/p>\n
Yci\ufb01fdweiiigsash\u00e9f
\n ‘I The  Chief Justice of India
\n  * and all iiipspther companion Judges.
\n2} V ‘Hon~3u1*:abAie Chief Justice of
\nKarnataka.\n<\/p>\n
  3. Honourable Justice Kumaraswarny,<\/p>\n
_ “~._High Court of
\nV _  ,.   iiarnataka.\n<\/p>\n
  Fourth Estate.”\n<\/p>\n
At ‘T ._OnN1O.’7.2OO9 the following order was passed:<\/p>\n
“The Matter was heard in part. After the
\ncase was adjourned, we have received a cover
\nwhich contains two photographs said to have
\nbeen sent by Jayapataka Swami Sisya Samuha.
\nThese photographs were taken when one of us
\nJustice K.L.i\\\/Ianjunath had given a visit to
\nISKCON Temple, Bangalore somewhere in the
\nyear 2003. The photo contains a presentation of<\/p>\n
92,<\/p>\n
-7-<\/span><\/p>\n
a picture of deity. Below the photograph it is
\nstated as hereunder:\n<\/p>\n
” 1. RFA 421\/O9 is pending before Justice
\nK.L.l\\\/lanjunath.\n<\/p>\n
2. Parties in RFA 421\/09 are ISKCON Mumbai iii”.  J” J<\/p>\n
Vs. ISKCON, Bangalore,<\/p>\n
3. Above picture shows close associatiorioft’ *  ”   it  _
\nJustice K.L.Manjunath and receiving g’ifts’~at”the g ~   J A<\/p>\n
premises of ISKCON Bangalore. ‘<\/p>\n
4. Inspite of having close association  V g
\nfrom 2003 and continue of _rece_iVin_g gifts,\u00ab._.,v._.,:
\nJustice K.L.l\\\/lanjuziath is:still”hearing the above
\nRFA 421\/09. for reasons ‘best’  <\/p>\n
5. Morally and ethiciai-1\u00a7rit*–xjightf5’v_ 1 ” <\/p>\n
6. As a   todcontinltie with the<\/p>\n
high refputgatioi”17o__f J’ustVic’e_K._LIMarijunath, is he
\nright in  of thisvvmatter at all C???\n<\/p>\n
Your Well   V’ <\/p>\n
C_.C.: 1l.a”‘i’he Honbie Chief Justice of India and<\/p>\n
 pp .  his other corripanion Judges.\n<\/p>\n
J6 p<\/p>\n
Ejloriourabie {Chief Justice of Karnataka.
\nHonourable Justice Kumaraswamy, High<\/p>\n
* [Court ofliarnataka.\n<\/p>\n
” V J’-Counsel
\n .Sri.S.K.V.Chalapathy. Sri.Udaya Holla submits<\/p>\n
 p. F-onrtl1.l’Estate.”\n<\/p>\n
-. .._’Th-esle Photographs were shown to the
\nle.ar;i_ed Senior Counsel appearing for the
\nappellant Sri.Udaya Holla and learned Senior
\nappearing for the respondent<\/p>\n
that his client has not dispatched the cover and
\nthere was no occasion to get the photo wherein
\nJustice K.L.i\\\/lanjunath receiving a photo of deity
\nfrom ISKCON, Bangalore since the dispute
\nbetween ISKCON, Mumbai and ISKCON,
\nBangalore was there much earlier to Justice
\nK.L.1VIan;’unath visiting the temple. He further
\nsubmitted that he and his client have got gull<\/p>\n
fl:\n<\/p>\n
3′<\/p>\n
\/.9<\/p>\n
_ 9 _.\n<\/p>\n
Considering the contents in the cover with
\nthe photographs, We are of the opinion that it is
\na black–ma.il tactics adopted by the persons who
\nare involved to avoid this Bench and to
\nscandalize Justice K.L.Manjunath and bring
\ndown the reputation of this court. We are also of
\nthe opinion that what has happened to Justice
\nK.L.Manjunath in this appeal shall not happen
\nto other Brothers\/Sisters Judges who have ‘
\nvisited the temple as devotees. When_;”the ” ;.
\nphotograph is taken by ESKCON, Bangalore in._’
\n2003, it is for them to explain how this .c9i..1_ld,be[ .
\nsent in the name of opposite -p’ar’ty.p ‘.\u00a7’herefi;r’e, 9<\/p>\n
both the parties are directed to \ufb01lethje affida’vits..  X, g <\/p>\n
giving explanation. . ._ _v \u00ab. V _
\nOffice is directed torlreep the cover and the<\/p>\n
Photo in safe custoC1Y-  ” . V _
\nCall this matter on i7*\u00bb..i7.’2o09.””   — <\/p>\n
Thereafter, the matter “posted  ..i7n;\u00a7?..009. tjnfthe said<\/p>\n
date the’ffolloW”it\u00a7gv   the court:\n<\/p>\n
9 “‘1’l1e’app_e11a’nt the respondent have
\n\ufb01led their af\ufb01davitsf; Learned Seniois counsel
\nappearingv for ‘*the'” respondent Mr.Mathai<\/p>\n
V, ._\u00a7M.Paikeday- requests the Court to grant a week’s
\n time tofile an'””a’dditiona1 affidavit looking into
\n the iordergsheet of this court dated 10.7.2009<\/p>\n
 T “and that the respondent is yet to obtain the
\n_””._pcertified copy of the order dated 10.7.2009. In<\/p>\n
‘ V the cpireumstances, time is granted.
\n Matter is adjourned to 31.7.2009.”\n<\/p>\n
 was posted to 31.7.2009. On that day at the<\/p>\n
request of the counsel for respondent No.1 the matter was<\/p>\n
adjourned to the following week and it was listed on<\/p>\n
7.8.2009, on which date the following orders were made:<\/p>\n
Per K.L.M, J: K; _<\/p>\n
\/4<\/p>\n
…10__<\/p>\n
“This matter was heard in~part on
\n2.7.2009. Thereafter the matter was adjourned.
\nto 7.7 .2009. Subsequently the matter was listed ‘    ~,
\nbefore this Court on 10.7.2009. After the ~ \u00bb
\nwas adjourned, on 2.7.2009 a cover was sent to_”-
\nboth of us. The details of which is narrated.uby.V:’ .
\nus in our order sheet dt.10.7.2.009–.and’_ thatldapy ‘
\nSri.S.A.1\\\/Iaruthi Prasad, a Member of”i:h”C_B,a1*..’vv…
\nclari\ufb01ed the circumstances under~._which’–photo ” <\/p>\n
was taken in ISKCON and the’ nature of Gift<\/p>\n
[which is a photo of Lord–_K’rishna)’ said to have <\/p>\n
been given to Justice;K.tL.Manj’unath’ by
\nISKCON. Thereafter, we… _di.rec.ted b”0th_ the
\nparties to file tithe _affidavitsp giving the
\nexplanation and the” rnattei\u00e9l }.avas._”lad3’ourned to
\n17.7.2009. —    I
\nAgajn’gtp1_r_i_e rnattes was –.ad_i_o_urned, from
\n17.7.2009. at; the requ_Vest.__\u00ab-of.the respondent’s<\/p>\n
counsel to_.-431 .7 .’200’9[‘.’- . A<\/p>\n
 In ~ {the 7′; rn_eanwhile_, two letters are
\naddressed V’ti)”-Justice”‘wK.L.I\\\/ianjunath, one by
\nSri. She-khar 7 etty,” ~ . 0 Advocate dt.24. 7. 2009
\nstatir’rg_ that” Sri.V;Rarr1esh Babu, colleague of
\nSri.S.K.’V.Cha1apathy” ff had approached him to<\/p>\n
__appear for, one of the parties in RFA
\n NQ;-42}\/2009′”pertaining to ISKCON which is
\n‘ V. 3 pendin.g”b_efore_ this Court and that he refused to<\/p>\n
T “appear. in this case since the matter was pending
\n bef0re..,_Jufs’iice K.L.Manjunath and the letter<\/p>\n
V “further I reads that even after the parties were
\n‘=dir.e’cte.d” in this case to file affidavit, he had<\/p>\n
approached and requested him to file Vakalath.<\/p>\n
Similarly, another letter is received by<\/p>\n
V’  {Justice K.L.l\\\/ianjunath from Sri.S.V.Srinivasan.<\/p>\n
Advocate which discloses that Sr1.S.A.}_\\\/Iaruthi
\nPrasad working as a colleague With Justice
\nK.L.Manjunath and S.V.Sn’nivasan had
\napproached Srinivasan requesting him to appear
\nfor ISKCON in the appeal pending before this
\nCourt and that he declined to appear for the
\nparty as requested by Sri.S.A.l\\\/Iaruthi Prasad.
\nThough these two ietters were received by<\/p>\n
Q<\/p>\n
_11_<\/p>\n
Justice K.L.Manjunath, on the last date of
\nhearing on 31.7.2009 to avoid any
\nunpleasantness these two letters were shown to
\nSri.S.K.V.Chalapathy and these two letters were
\nalso shown to Sri.Udaya Holla. On perusal of<\/p>\n
these two letters, Sri.S.K.V.Chalapathy
\nrequested us not to disclose the contents of this
\nletters. Accordingly. on his request the mattelj’-W; ‘<\/p>\n
was adjourned to this day.\n<\/p>\n
Today Sri. S.K.V.Chalapathy in.  l ” .\n<\/p>\n
presence of Sri.Ramesh Babu s.’.–1’b’m.itS that these<\/p>\n
two Advocates are denying __fofr  having
\napproached the two Advoc2,tes__ ”who’- _have_ ”
\naddressed letters to Justice_’K.L.lVIanjunath.– . . V’<\/p>\n
It may be noted at “stage thatlldustice<\/p>\n
K.L.1\\\/Ianjunath had worke_d’~..asx._g a junior _or
\nSri.Shekhar Shettyzirom I531 September 1974 to
\n10″‘ February 197′?” and froin:.ll’.–2Q;2QQ7 till his
\nelevation Sri.S.V.Sriniv-asanwas_–~pr’ac’tici’ng with
\nhim and that Sri.M3I’uthi Prasad ;w,a;sVa junior
\ncolleague; “of_’– Justice  Manjunath and
\nSri.S.V.Sriniwasan;. W  .\n<\/p>\n
 * the’  the submissions of
\nS_I’i.S.K.V Chalapathy””it is for Sri.Ramesh Babu<\/p>\n
3 4andtiSri.1\\\/Iaz”-u_thi Prasad to file their affidavit.<\/p>\n
 f:.List~._this matter on 11.8.2009 at 4.30 p.m.<\/p>\n
if  Per::’C_,R.K:;;j,1araswamy,J<\/p>\n
V.  the dictation of my brother, His<\/p>\n
“Lordship Sri.K.L.l\\\/Ianjunath. If a Judge is<\/p>\n
defarned in such a way as not to affect the<\/p>\n
V ” :,adri:iinistration of justice he has the ordinary<\/p>\n
remedies for defamation. It is of fundamental<\/p>\n
V  importance that justice should not only be done.<\/p>\n
but should manifestly and undoubtediy be seen
\nto be done. Therefore in this background, post
\nthis matter before a Bench of which Justice
\nC.R.Kumaraswamy is not a Member after
\nobtaining necessary orders from the I-lon’ble
\nChief Justice.\n<\/p>\n
L,\/,i<\/p>\n
_12e<\/p>\n
In the circumstances, place this matter
\nbefore the P\u00a7on’ble Chief Justice for necessary
\norders.”\n<\/p>\n
The matter was posted to l1.8.20O9p.W On that\u00bb theft ‘* <\/p>\n
request of the counsel for respondent l\\lo.il,7 the matter :’w_aa_i if<\/p>\n
adjourned to 18.8.2009. In the-rneanwhile, iri”yi’e’sy_of <\/p>\n
orders dated ‘?.8.2009 the matte’r.:’was before the
\nHon’ble Chief Justice  was directed that
\nthe matter be heard   by Hon’ble
\nMr.Justice     matter is posted
\nbefore this  f 2 . if f<\/p>\n
7. In\ufb02the  and particularly the orders<\/p>\n
made by this court  period, Misc.Cvl. application<\/p>\n
 has beenii\ufb01led d:i..3\u00a7\u00a2ha1f of respondent No.1 on 3.8.2009 to<\/p>\n
   of objections have been filed. Before<\/p>\n
\u00a2;ms:;1er;;p.g ~vthe.:’sa”id application on merits, it is necessary to<\/p>\n
V by _ mention V-_abcu’t the affidavits filed on behalf of the appellant<\/p>\n
   do respondent No.1 pursuant to the directions of this court.<\/p>\n
  On 16.7.2009 the appellant \ufb01led its affidavit stating<\/p>\n
 that it has the fullest trust and confidence in the Judges<\/p>\n
hearing the appeal and that it had absolutely no objection<\/p>\n
-13..\n<\/p>\n
for the appeal continued to be heard by the same Bench. On<\/p>\n
17.7 .2009 respondent No.1 filed its affidavit advertin_g..to..the<\/p>\n
newspaper reports dated 11.7.2009 with  _<\/p>\n
proceedings held on 10.7.2009  it  <\/p>\n
statements made in the newspaper .-reports’ is”- correct, .7<\/p>\n
attributed to have been made.by.___l\\\/Irduslticeg
\nwould demonstrate his   the first
\nrespondent, as the statements  andddinivmensely
\ntarnished the image of the  The
\nsaid affidavit   including
\nnewspaper  held on 10.7.2009.\n<\/p>\n
Furthery asmgii  filedmby gthewappellants on 30.7.2009
\nincluding:  in response to which<\/p>\n
additional affid_avi.t  rejoinder to the affidavit dated<\/p>\n
 “v30.7..2:0Q9. was fi1ed”by”the appellant No.1 including certain<\/p>\n
   mean while, the application under<\/p>\n
consideratioxddiated 3.8.2009 was \ufb01led, to which objections<\/p>\n
shave beeii: filed by the appellant on 7.8.2009 to which<\/p>\n
A …lffe._Ajolinder af\ufb01davit has been filed by the respondent No.1 on<\/p>\n
  18.8.2009.\n<\/p>\n
9. 1n the said application dated 3.8.2009, while narrating<\/p>\n
about the order dated 10.7.2009 and as to what transpired<\/p>\n
.42<\/p>\n
A<\/p>\n
 ‘  9 are as foll ws:\n<\/p>\n
\\<\/p>\n
.. -.   an  Jr.<\/p>\n
M14-\n<\/p>\n
in the court on that day, by referring to para 9 of the<\/p>\n
affidavit dated 17.7.2009 it is stated that it is the practi.cee.of<\/p>\n
the first respondent to take photographs of _<\/p>\n
festivals and visits by dignitaries to the temple:’:’a.nd.::thosel0′<\/p>\n
photographs are displayed freely in  <\/p>\n
reception and other waiting rooms a’n_d’.also displayedl’; on <\/p>\n
notice board in the first respoiid_ent_V ternpleiaccesisible to
\nanyone. There is no’   taking
\nphotographs by general public
\nwho are preseritllon-“those  in the sanctum
\nsanctorum     is not prohibited.\n<\/p>\n
Referringll  or   materials from the
\npossessilonll of V  with reference to the<\/p>\n
affidavit is also “made, Athe’~~fi1rther averments at para 6, 7, 8,<\/p>\n
_   However, on reading the Order dated
\n 10.07.2009, any reasonable man can conclude
\n that’ the photographs enclosed are (only) from
\nthegpossession of ISKCON Bangalore and that<\/p>\n
.. _ ISKCON Bangalore is resorting to blackmailing
\n‘ ‘gand scandalizing His Lordship Mr.Justice
\n ..=K.L.Manjunath and the envelope was sent by
\nISKCON Bangalore in the name of the opposite<\/p>\n
PaITY~<\/p>\n
7. it may be recalled at this juncture, that in
\nParagraph 24 of my affidavit dated July 1’7,
\n2009, I have extracted reports appearing in the
\nnewspaper Deccan Herald on 11.31 July, 2009.
\nThe reports appeared in ‘Deccan Herald’ dated<\/p>\n
\ufb01n<\/p>\n
_15W<\/p>\n
July 11, 2009 quoted Justice Manjunath as
\nextracted below:\n<\/p>\n
‘He said he used to visit the Temple as a devotee
\nunit! 2003 and stopped thereafter due to several’,_
\ndoubts. “This should not happen to the innocent’    <\/p>\n
devotees visiting temples he said.’ <\/p>\n
Similar reports have appeared in P?raiatranig”<\/p>\n
Indian Express, Times of Indi_a,~ I)NA.’City;’ATl’1eV”  is
\nHinju, Kannada Prabha, Samyuktha;Karnata_kapV.__
\netc. Copies of the news items’=.pu.biished~_inthe   20<\/p>\n
aforesaid news papers were\u00bb. produced’;<\/p>\n
collectively marked as i%ni1eXure*~I~i along  <\/p>\n
my A\ufb01idavit dated July l7l;”2_009.\n<\/p>\n
8. It is most respectfully stdimitted, that any
\nright~minded person’ who {_reacis’ aforesaid
\nNews Paper reports will reach a…conclu’s;ion that
\nHon’ble Mn: Justice\u00bb K}L.Ma’njunath is biased
\nagainst ISKQQN i~.’:{anga.lore\u00ab.. entertaining serious
\ndoubts\u00e9and {opinion. against ‘ESKCON Bangalore.
\nThat the iearnedJtidge– .is_havi.ng a belief that
\nISKCOFE I3-an;galore’–arc’ ‘Blackrnai1ers’ who adopt
\nscu1’ri1–ou”s met.;hod’s.gilor ‘axfoiding the bench’ and
\nthat p delVo_tees'<_should be beware of them.<\/p>\n
Obliviousiy  of the temple is put at<\/p>\n
stake. " =<\/p>\n
 It  submitted, that the Appeal<\/p>\n
R.F'.,A.l\\io.._ 421\/2009, came up for Admission on<\/p>\n
~ g "dunes L19, 22009 before 21 Bench presided over by
\n Pion'ble f\ufb01ll\/Er.Justice K.L.l\\\/ianjunath and<\/p>\n
V "lstrangely,' the Appellants have moved at the time
\n of admission itself, an application for eariy<\/p>\n
hearing of the R.F.A. It is submitted that
\nCounsel for this Respondent did not oppose the<\/p>\n
by 9 'early hearing of the Appeal, and the matter came
\n' ' .to be listed for hearing immediately, on June 29,<\/p>\n
2009 and intact, the counsel for Respondent
\nNo.1 waited for three full days prior to
\n02.07.2009 from morning till rising of the court
\nfor the matter to reach and the hearing actually
\ncommenced on Juiy 2, 2009 at about 4.00 p.m.
\nand thereafter the regular Bench for hearing
\nRFAS changed. I also state that on 10\/07\/2009,
\nwhen the anonymous letter was shown to our<\/p>\n
,9<\/p>\n
_\/ti.\n<\/p>\n
sign.\n<\/p>\n
counsel, he instantaneously submitted that the
\nsame be ignored and request this Hon’ble Court
\nto proceed with hearing of the Appeal. These  l .
\nfacts are narrated for the purpose of showing the” -V  ‘<\/p>\n
bona tides of the 13’ Respondent and to
\nthe Appellants unfounded allegation of ‘-.chA–_V”\u00bb.” ‘<\/p>\n
hunting’. ‘<\/p>\n
10. Thus on the facts and circuinstVa1<1_ces,*  V<\/p>\n
151 Respondent is havingihuf *'reason\u00e91.bie  <\/p>\n
apprehension that ,Hon'bi'e  Mr.JLi_stice' i
\nK.L.l\\\/ianjunath is biased Aagairistf' _ t.l"iis.
\nRespondent. it is my huiiible subrr:ission= that
\nsince the learned Judge___i_s'~pre:wdisposeC1 and
\nhaving prejudices.as,stated abovefvhe is unable<\/p>\n
to act as a Judge inthis, Case'.'f  "\n<\/p>\n
Thus the two aspects heing   for having an<\/p>\n
apprehension of against Mr. Justice__K:L.Manjunath are,<\/p>\n
the coiljvt\/en–ts   ‘dated 107.2009 and the<\/p>\n
newspaper reportsxlcf  .\n<\/p>\n
 4, _10.  ‘5’.:.in__pAresvponse’ t0___the said application a counter affidavit<\/p>\n
“beenv4’\ufb011:<-;C1h"'by the first appellant stating that the sole<\/p>\n
intentiondv  the said application is to protract the<\/p>\n
g procefediiigsfx The same lacks bonafides that it is an<\/p>\n
 "ggnstancevllof contempt of this court as any litigant cannot<\/p>\n
choose and judge and any such attempt must be crushed<\/p>\n
"  a heavy hand. That initially an attempt was made to<\/p>\n
it connect this appeal with another appeal and the said request<\/p>\n
was rejected and with the consent of both sides when the<\/p>\n
ta<\/p>\n
W1'\/'it<\/p>\n
matter was to be heard a courier which bore the address of<\/p>\n
the branch of the first appellant situated at Bangal.o_re<l'lisv<\/p>\n
stated to have been sent by the disciples of the tiff' .<\/p>\n
Thereafter an affidavit has been filed on  it"<\/p>\n
attempt that the matter is not he\u00bbard::-ratiid d'ettier\u00e9eaftef-e._the;_at<\/p>\n
application has been filed  speci\ufb01c
\nfurther averred that there is a  _that\ufb02the first
\nrespondent had taken  Honble Judge
\nwhen he had visited the   of the order
\ndated    of bias on the
\npart of the   dated 10.7.2009 was
\ndictated"    _  v\ufb02deponent of the said
\napplication!' and that sustenance cannot be<\/p>\n
drawn _ from lithe newspap'er reports to contend that the<\/p>\n
 "Pres'i:dingA*-\u00bb}u'dge islbiased in the matter against respondent<\/p>\n
   of the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme<\/p>\n
Courtby  dated 29.4.2008 which was brought to the<\/p>\n
 "notice lithe court, it was agreed between the parties that<\/p>\n
 inatter would be heard at the stage of admission itself on<\/p>\n
'''.''account. of the urgency and by consent it was posted to<\/p>\n
u".2'9.6.2009. The matter was taken up at 3.20pm on<\/p>\n
2.7.2009 and it was heard till the end of the day. That the<\/p>\n
allegations of bias made against the judge are false,<\/p>\n
4';\n<\/p>\n
.f”)j\/sh<\/p>\n
_ lg _
\nscandalous and contemptuous and the prayer sought by<\/p>\n
respondent No.1 is wholly untenable. if such prayers are<\/p>\n
allowed, then it would encourage the litigants in _’<\/p>\n
bench hunting and forum shopping and the   .<\/p>\n
\ufb02ooded with such applications. Therefore.–“tl1’e:fappellant..:it <\/p>\n
No.1 sought for dismissal of the saidl=.applica*tion..:   it<\/p>\n
11. In response, on i7.8.2oog,@-oiliaer’ has
\nthe respondent stating that  the  dated
\n3.8.2009 was filed   Justice
\nC.R.Kumaraswarny__\\zvitl\\\\EJ  by his order<\/p>\n
dated  dateldWi.0.7.2009 is opposed to
\nthe principles of  ‘j–u:stice and that there is absolutely<\/p>\n
no urgency lI;o’rV_hearing’v.the. appeal. On the said date the<\/p>\n
 “If1atter:’w:.a\u00bbS takenlllupat about 4.00p.m and was heard for<\/p>\n
 only; that the \ufb01ling of application for<\/p>\n
recusal doeslelnoit amount to contempt of court; that the two<\/p>\n
‘letters pvurported to have been sent in the name of two<\/p>\n
A ‘~  namely Sri .She-khar Shetty and<\/p>\n
“.”Srl;.S.V.Srinivasan in a bid to avoid Justice K.L.Manjunath<\/p>\n
 hearing the appeal is probably on account of the<\/p>\n
involvement of the appellant who had earlier approached the<\/p>\n
counsel for first respondent, namely Sri.Maruti Prasad by<\/p>\n
21\u00bb<\/p>\n
_  LAAAA
\nwriting a letter and including the Demand Draft requesting<\/p>\n
him to switch over his loyalty from ISKCON Bangalo1=F;_ to<\/p>\n
ISKCON Mumbai; that Sri.Ramesh Babu 8: Srt;lvEaifu:ti.A’<\/p>\n
Prasad, Advocates against whom the allegations”haVe”iaeen'”‘ ‘<\/p>\n
made in the said two letters have denied’  <\/p>\n
and therefore, re–iterated the avennents’ prayerpnniadlsi\ufb01.\/_:<\/p>\n
the application. _ V V _ V __\n<\/p>\n
12. We have heard the learned ‘Senior Countsel’lSri.} Mathai<\/p>\n
M.Pai Keday for the applicant\/–‘_resppo’ndenttNo.1 and learned
\nSenior Counsel,    for the<\/p>\n
respond_ent\/ _ —\n<\/p>\n
13.  vSeni_orz_ “Co.iJnsel for the applicant has<\/p>\n
 \u00ab. p_vsub3_ni:tted’ that though\ufb02ie applicant has not furnished proof<\/p>\n
ofulsioas–,_neverth.eless the application is based on what<\/p>\n
transpirevd  the court and also on the newspaper reports.<\/p>\n
‘V While’ narrating the facts, he drew our attention to the order<\/p>\n
if if V’  1d;J7.2009 and particularly the following portion of the<\/p>\n
—   order and particularly to the last paragraph of page 5 of<\/p>\n
T  “the said order namely the words “blackmail tactics adopted<\/p>\n
by the persons who are involved to avoid this Bench” and to<\/p>\n
the words “when the photograph is taken by ISIgC.’ON.<\/p>\n
W29”\n<\/p>\n
Bangalore in 2003, it is for them to explain how this could be<\/p>\n
sent in the name of opposite party” which are the_4vcou.rt~’s<\/p>\n
conclusion of the probabilities. That the newspaper’  _<\/p>\n
and particularly the quotations in the said .r\u00b0ep*0r?\u00a3, b nanaelyvgr <\/p>\n
“he used to visit the temple as devotee until   s’toppedVu h<\/p>\n
thereafter”….. “this should .7no__t happen. t::t)”l’  other <\/p>\n
brother\/ sister judges who are  two
\naspects which give rise apprehension of bias.
\nTherefore, according to__  iirajrervvanade in the
\napplication   reference to the
\norder of Mr: dated 7.8.2009 he
\nstated   He has also submitted
\nthat till ‘date no  sent to the court to the<\/p>\n
sender. of the ‘co_u1’ier–. He has relied upon certain decision of<\/p>\n
 V’ “the i’lSpex,’Court whichshaii be adverted to.<\/p>\n
 ,__l’VhPer_  learned Senior Counsel appearing for the<\/p>\n
l’appellantirespondent, in the application while adverting to<\/p>\n
“tlthel two aspects being the basis of bias drew our attention to<\/p>\n
l  the fact that the order dated 10.7.2009 directed both the<\/p>\n
it parties to file affidavits giving explanation and therefore,<\/p>\n
there was no conclusion in the matter and neither was it a<\/p>\n
case of pre-judging the issue. He has also stated that the
\nab<\/p>\n
VVVV  ._
\ndoes not hear the matter and such practices have to be
\ncurbed with a heavy hand, keeping in mind the dignity of the<\/p>\n
institution.\n<\/p>\n
15. Referring to the affidavits filed, he submittedptthpatpinWV<\/p>\n
the first instance, the applicant did not speaksahoutfp:the*’…._l.’ .<\/p>\n
photograph in question being stolen. Byut it has’b~e:’e_nlVstated  <\/p>\n
so only in the rejoinder affidavit. The wavepring..stan’dl ‘of’-ethe<\/p>\n
applicant shows the total lacIt:___ of .fi3.onafideesV,l’l’ that thevl<\/p>\n
applicant had earlier filed a simillarilsuit before: the Bombay
\nHigh Court which was disrnissec.iA andvfuthterefore, the applicant<\/p>\n
has been consio’t.entl:3r  in Forum Shopping and
\nBench hunting taetica.  also stated that it is the<\/p>\n
prerogative 0ftl’fl1\u00a2%Vl’IO.I’l’bllt-‘. Chief Justice to allocate the work.<\/p>\n
file also ieferredvvltlollcertain decision of the Apex Court<\/p>\n
lwhitgh ‘sh all.ppl:)e’VaV<i:Verted to.<\/p>\n
 In" reply learned Senior Counsel for the applicant<\/p>\n
  that it is not just the newspaper reports which is the<\/p>\n
 ___"'basis of the application, but the affidavits also have to be<\/p>\n
llvtaken into consideration. Adverting to Annexure–1 dated<\/p>\n
30.7.2009 it is stated that at an earlier point of time the<\/p>\n
head of the institution of Bangalore ISKCON was the<\/p>\n
_ 23 _
\nChairman of Jaya Pataka Swamy Shishya Samuha but not
\npresently. He further submitted that the reference made to
\nthe prerogative of the Chief Justice of the High Court to<\/p>\n
ailocate Work has no relevance in the matter.<\/p>\n
17. Having heard the counsel on both sides  ‘<\/p>\n
perusal of the material on record, thefollowingflpoiiitls’  if<\/p>\n
for our consideration:\n<\/p>\n
1. Whether the prayer inade in the ought = if<\/p>\n
to be accepted? __
\n$2. If the answer “toil point the negative,<\/p>\n
whether the \ufb01ling”0f:”sueh’\u00bb_anxVapplviclation amounts<\/p>\n
 tofprinia  conternptoflthis court.\n<\/p>\n
18. V”rWe _ have  pp detail the contents of the<\/p>\n
application’a.nd\u00bbthe-_statenient of objections as well as the<\/p>\n
 . porderspmade on varmuslstates. From the material on record,<\/p>\n
it apparexitthat the applicant has raised the plea of real<\/p>\n
 on two aspects; namely) the order dated<\/p>\n
_p  the newspaper reports. However, in the reply<\/p>\n
if  learned Senior Counsel for the applicant stated<\/p>\n
C  thatleven the contents of the affidavits have to be taken into<\/p>\n
 if consideratiori and we shalt presently refer to the affidavits.<\/p>\n
2\u00bb<\/p>\n
IIAAJA  LLLAAA\n<\/p>\n
19. Pursuant to the order dated 10.7.2009 both sides
\nhave filed affidavits. On 16.? .2009 the appellant has filed its<\/p>\n
affidavit stating that with regard to the courier sent toflthe<\/p>\n
Judges which bore the address of the branch  <\/p>\n
appellant situated at Seshadripurarn, BangalQ_re;~–.,’extensive”<9<\/p>\n
enquiries were made and that neither the 4in_appel1antp:n(jVrp <\/p>\n
any of his discipies had said the comrri1inicationg..Jigitis "stated ll<\/p>\n
that the appellants have the fullestitrust  in<\/p>\n
the Hon'b1e Judges heaiingthe\n<\/p>\n
20. In the affid\u00e9.vit.fi1e\u00a7d by’ _t,’t1e~.app_lieanif fflI’St respondent,<\/p>\n
the proceedingsflof hahvelbeen referred to and on
\naccount of the “of the order dated 10.? .2009<\/p>\n
not being yetlavaiialole..”liherty was sought to file a detailed<\/p>\n
.9 9. ”af\u00a3id’avi’t.a._”it isalso averred that a similar cover with photos<\/p>\n
“=t151e;f_ to the Judges Was also received on<\/p>\n
  first respondent, which was noticed by the<\/p>\n
  ‘ deponenton 10.7.2009. The receipt of the similar cover was<\/p>\n
 ._ ” to the notice of their counsel; that the addressee of<\/p>\n
  said courier is the 411″ defendant in the original suit from<\/p>\n
lexwhich the appeal arises. However, at para 9 8: 10 of the<\/p>\n
affidavit it is stated as follows:\n<\/p>\n
_.26a<\/p>\n
21. While referring to the incidents of theft of docume_’n_ts,_<\/p>\n
it is submitted that the appellant has the abi1i_ty;V.. to ~<\/p>\n
material and information of the first_respondent”  it”<\/p>\n
means and using the same to prejudice”etiie <\/p>\n
first respondent. That the appellant  also bee:en;\ufb02ta.rgeting
\nthe persons who are present  false-..ltallegat.ions so
\nas to create prejudice  and loring dis-<\/p>\n
repute to respondent   24 and 25 of<\/p>\n
the afiidavit       * <\/p>\n
 ….  C IV:’::t1brIii._t that these’glaring instances
\nevvidencedlitby unwimpeachable documents clearly
\nestablishes’  {a”c–~:_ “that it is not the 1st
\nRespondent .pbu[te.thep_ “Appellant who has most
\nprobably” indulged “in”_;sending the said envelop
\nwith photos ethusattempting to scandalize and<\/p>\n
,, .’_E3ring dis~repute to the judiciary as well as to the
\n_ = l’5t2,_Respondent;’ “” ‘Tliis is a clear case of abuse of
\n‘ u _, processpof the Court and contempt of court.<\/p>\n
 details of the incident that took place
\nV in Court on 10\u00ab~7\u00ab~2.009 are reported in Various
\n””–newspapers. The reports appearing in Deccan
\nHerald and Prajavani issues of the newspapers
\n.  dated 11-72009 are extracted as follows: “He
\nC “said he used to visit the temple as a devotee
\nV  until 2003 and stopped thereafter due to several
\ndoubts. This should not happen to the innocent
\ndevotees visiting temples. “Similar reports have
\nappeared in the Prajavani, Indian Express,
\nTimes of India, DNA City, The Hindu, Kannada
\nPrabha, Samyauktha Karnataka etc., Copies of
\nthe article published in the aforesaid
\nnewspapers are collectively produced herewih as
\nAnnexure-H series.\n<\/p>\n
.\/,j<\/p>\n
W30″\n<\/p>\n
appellant No.1. In the said affidavit while re-iterating the
\ncontents of the earlier affidavit dated 17.7.2009 and after<\/p>\n
receipt of certi\ufb01ed copy of the order dated 10.7.2009, para 4,<\/p>\n
5, 6, 12, 13, 14, 1’7, 19, 20, 27, 31 and 33 read as <\/p>\n
“-4. I submit that, it is stated in th6_.oi;de”r\u00bbl.’ -1- <\/p>\n
dt 10.07.2009 passed by this I-Ion’b1e lC.our:t”,=. 0′ it
\nthat Sri S.A.1\\\/laruthi Prasad, advocate..’wh’o..,was’e. ‘ _
\nappearing for the Respondent No.1 in; the.tri\u00aba_l,  ‘<\/p>\n
court, when interrogated by this :_Ho,ri’ble Court,’   ‘J<\/p>\n
admitted, that he was taking a__ll*the judges-to
\nISKCON Bangalore and ‘.__during_ those yjisit,
\nphotographs were being-ftaken  =,I,S_V”._KCi’,)N”l
\nBangalore. In this regard,most humbly and
\nrespectfully subrnit. , that, “the ._:F1espondent”-No. 1 ,
\nthrough Marathi —-..Prasad, ;Adv-oeate. _ had sent
\ninvitation to only two l~io.r1fble_ judges of this
\nCourt, namely… _ ‘–,I~ionTble”v.  )l’\u00bb.dr.Justice
\nK.L.Man}ui1.ath_ gland  ijI’o.n’.131e’  Mr.Justice
\nChandraishel\u00e9\u00e9garaiah, [ad forrnenjudge of this
\ncourt; “I s1._ibrr.i_t that__ apart frornithe above two
\nHon’bleJii._1dges,”‘ no ‘m;.\u00a2a*uon ‘was sent through
\nSr} Maruthi “‘1i?3r.\u00a31sad.i-._inxriting the other Hon’ble
\nJudges “tel’,I.SK(?3,Ol’i.T, 4B\u00aba.ngalore.<\/p>\n
 g  submit that on one such occasion,
\n‘*I::{t3-n’ble~ Mr Justice K L Manjunath was invited
\n spec”ii,’1cally”‘for a puja on one of the festival days
\n“lalong’r.Wi’\u00bb’\u00a7h other respectable persons like our
\n do.f:iors\u00ab,’ sponsors, etc. On that day Plorrble Mr
\nJustice K. L Manjunath participated in the puja<\/p>\n
., _ arid’ after the puja, as is the custom, he was
\n0 “\u00ab-invited to accept one of the souvenirs, a photo
\n..*frame of the temple deity, and prasadam.
\nSouvenirs of the temple were given to all the
\ninvitees and Hon’ble Mr Justice K L Manjunath
\nwas one among them. At the time when the
\nphoto frame was presented, various other
\nmembers of the public were also present
\nincluding devotees in large numbers and the
\nmembers of the public including devotees have
\ntaken photographs of the said presentation<\/p>\n
Q<\/p>\n
=\/,<\/p>\n
M:-32..\n<\/p>\n
R.F.A.No.421\/2009 for the ends of Justice and
\ngood conscience.\n<\/p>\n
XXXXX<\/p>\n
12. Re Para 6 & 7: The averrnents  <\/p>\n
in para 6, that I have filed some new_sp\u00abaper*v..:”‘
\ncutting, which wrongly reported the proc_ee’t1ings=
\ndt.10.07.2009 and has sought. to draw”*false’i
\nconclusion of bias against the judges”._are-fa1’s.6, 9’ V
\nand the same are not adrnitted. i{.tiis significant
\nto state here the admitted fact on record, tl_1?lt”C11  ‘
\n10.7.2009, when the” _Hon’ble’v. Mr. *\u00a7justit’..em <\/p>\n
K.L.Manjunath passed “over. the  co’ver’.= with
\nphotographs to Sri S.K.V.Chalap.athy, the Senior
\nCounsel appearing~..for the 1?’ Respondent, “the
\ninstant reaction ofS.;K.V’;*Cl2alapathy, the
\nSenior Advocate was, that:’he i2’re_quested the
\ncourt to ignore their-said. cover  photographs
\nand to proceed _:’,furth~ei’w._hearing of the
\nappeal.” 3Thi;s”instantreaction ontiie part of the
\nLearned Courisel fu;.,,,,the,_ l1?*l”Respondent clearly
\nindicates ‘iiheg full ‘conii_dence, t\u00e9fust and faith, the<\/p>\n
15* Respc)jndenftl1ad.,.’for theWHon’ble court. The
\navpprehension, or t’he’.i=*’- -Respondent that the
\nHon’ble ..E__{.”L,\u00a7!.-Ianjunatli is having bias
\nand ‘*–prejudi’ce ‘against the 13’ Respondent has
\nstarted onlypoin the ‘reading of the newspaper on<\/p>\n
pg _{ 11.97.2009,. _wherein the said newspaper i.e.
\n~ ‘Deccan Herald–arild Prajavani have attributed the<\/p>\n
statement published by them to the judge, that<\/p>\n
 9 “they ’11-i’on”‘;:)1e Mr.Justice K.L.Manjunath was
\n Vi’siting1SKCON temple of the 1st Respondent till
\n 2003a_nd that his Lordship stopped visiting the
\n te1:_jnp}e\u00bb’because of doubts. The starting point of<\/p>\n
apprehension on the part of the 18* Respondent,
\nthat the Hon’ble court is biased and prejudiced<\/p>\n
00 ll\ufb02pagainst the 1S’~ Respondent is due to the said
\nJstaternent attributed to the judge, which<\/p>\n
appeared in the newspapers on 11.07.2009.
\nHowever on reading the Order dated 10.7.2009.
\na copy, of which was received by the 15*
\nRespondent on 22.7.2009, which order also very
\nclearly indicates that the Hon’ble Court without
\nholding any enquiry and without giving proper
\nopportunity to the 18* Respondent, has obviously
\ncome to the conclusion, that it is the 1*”<\/p>\n
5%<\/p>\n
[7<\/p>\n
. , ;on facts. ”\n<\/p>\n
M33…\n<\/p>\n
Respondent who has sent the said letter and
\nphotographs in the name of the opposite party.<\/p>\n
13. It may be further clari\ufb01ed at this stage ~u
\nitself, that the 13* Respondent having expressed;..,__a’ 5 _._
\nfull confidence in the court on 10.7.2\/009,V’vv <\/p>\n
cannot be attributed with the act of sending,the”<\/p>\n
said letter and the photographs,’ if the.” 191″ <\/p>\n
respondent or somebody on: their’ be\u00abl3aLEf* _ ,
\nsent the photographs and: letter, the _ lst ~  A T<\/p>\n
Respondent through their Senior Advocate<\/p>\n
would have not instantly _eXpressed and  <\/p>\n
reposing full faith and confidence in._th’e Court.
\nThe very fact that the Senior’ Counsel for the Est
\nRespondent had irilstantlyn requested, the conrt to
\nignore the said letter” and the photographs and
\nto proceed to hear the 3r1atter_..further’__ itself is
\nsufficient proof of their. i’nnccence”andvbona\ufb01des.<\/p>\n
It f\ufb01lay  by sublnitted that the
\nDeccan Herald ll”an4d”–.’P.raj’avani newspapers are
\nrep1.1.ted”newspapcrand of..l,or_1g5 Standing and are
\nk7.iown”foir _vthe:ir honest and accurate reporting.
\n‘l’b,e staterrl:’:’nt”of ‘the\u00ab– ..Appellant that the said
\nreports are wro_ngand~on the said wrong reports,
\nthe LES? Respondent cannot allege bias against
\njudges”etc’., are ansiistainable both in law and<\/p>\n
 Para 10 & 11: I have explained in<\/p>\n
l”‘idetail*he:*ein above that on one such occasion
\n“~\u00ab…wh,_er1.,Hon’b1e Mr Justice K.L.l\\\/Ianjunath was<\/p>\n
invited speci\ufb01cally for a pnja on one of the
\nfestival days along with other respectable<\/p>\n
~ in \u00abpersons like our donors, sponsors, etc. On that
\n” ~_ day Hon’b1e Mr Justice K.L.Manjunath<\/p>\n
participated in the puja and after the puja, as is
\nthe custom, he was invited to accept one of the
\nsouvenirs, a photo frame of the temple deity,
\nand prasadam. Souvenirs of the temple were
\ngiven to all the invitees and Hon’ble Mr. Justice
\nK.L.Manjunath was one among them. At the
\ntime when the photo frame was presented,
\nvarious other members of the public were also<\/p>\n
\/V\u00bb<\/p>\n
M34.”\n<\/p>\n
present including devotees in large numbers and
\nthe members of the public and devotees have<\/p>\n
taken photographs of the said presentation _
\nmade. It is pertinent of state here that excepti”.<\/p>\n
for the sanctum sanctorum of the temple where
\nthe main deity is situated, in all other places’  3
\nand especially during festivals, photography  5′ ‘
\nfreely permitted. it is signi\ufb01cant to state,_here.. 9’<\/p>\n
that the Appellants with a mala\ufb01de.’in’i:en’tion.. ‘<\/p>\n
in\ufb02uenced and allured, over a’peri’od aofp lastnin:-g  1 ‘
\nyears, the missionary devotees in\u00bba.bout 2.0″ in <\/p>\n
number to switch over their loyalties from
\nESKCON Bangalore to ISKCQN Mumbai andfpwvho<\/p>\n
are now actively associated “with the Ap.pe,_E_lants’.'” <\/p>\n
It is submitted that such”=devotees”who have
\ndefected to ESKCO1-‘~1..Mumtb’ai;. have givenihe
\nphotographs taken by them .o”n,_th_at.yoccasion to
\nthe Appellants, who _srnay_,have ‘dispatched the
\nsame to this Hon’bAle_VCopurt_ in order’ prejudice
\nthe cases of the  _ Respondent. The
\nAppellan:p\u00a3.Nci..si’ admits” that” they have no
\nknoWledge.__ *abfou\u00b0t._: _the_ averments made in
\nParagraplri 6.: and 7 oi”foiir”‘aifidaVit.<\/p>\n
“19. ” _3_e’–. 9″-ara~*’l 13: I submit that the<\/p>\n
_\u00a7ayer1nent” ~._hat Jayapataka Swami Shishya
\n Samuha is ti’ie”‘creation of Mr.l\\\/iadhu Pandit<\/p>\n
Dasa is absolutely false and baseless and hereby<\/p>\n
T’ “vstc.iit1y”ic1eiiied. It is submitted that the said
\n organizatien by name Jayapataka Swami
\nA “aShishy’a Samuha has been in existence for last<\/p>\n
 three-decades. It is false to state that it is the<\/p>\n
creation of Sri Madhu pandit Das. It is true to
\nstate here that Sri Madhu Pandit Das was once<\/p>\n
A \u00abelected as the chairman of the said Samuha in
\n..the year 1983 or 84. Since the beginning of the<\/p>\n
theological dispute in 1999 with Jayapataka
\nswami, Madhu Pandit Das has nothing to do
\nwith Jayapataka Swami Sishya Samuh. It is
\nSigni\ufb01cant to state that the said organization
\nconsists of thousands of disciples of Jayapataka
\nSwami, Defendant No.4 in the suit. Several
\nDisciples of Jayapataka Swami even reside in
\nthe address from which the Anonymous Letter<\/p>\n
_37m<\/p>\n
26. In the context of biasifthe English Courts have<\/p>\n
that to disqualify a person from acting in a   _<\/p>\n
quasijudicial capacity on the ground oft’ <\/p>\n
subject matter of the proceeding,  realallikelih:o.od-  .A<\/p>\n
must be shown not only .\u00bbi1’o_n1 the l”inate1’i’ais.:’_in ifact <\/p>\n
ascertained by the party compllainingyy   other
\nfacts as he might readily:_h:a_ve   verified
\nin the course of his   suspicions of
\nwhimsical, ca1:ii’icipti’s  =iunreasonable.Lpeople should not
\nbe made a   action of the court. It
\nmight  if  rested or reasonable
\ngrou1’idsll’–.~\\Vxllras V generated, but certainly mere<\/p>\n
\ufb02imsy. elusiye. lTiOIV’lIvldA ‘suspicions should not be permitted to<\/p>\n
‘l V’  forrna ground of de’cision.\n<\/p>\n
  ~  .VI’n~.t’n.e”‘case of Intemational Airport Authority of India<\/p>\n
‘iv\/\u00a7.’i.r:.b.i\u00a7a1:(1\u00a7.I’R” 1988 so 1099} it is observed that it is not<\/p>\n
\u00abV every suspicion held by a party which must lead to the<\/p>\n
it ii.Vconclusion that the authority hearing the proceedings is<\/p>\n
  biased. The apprehension must be judged from a healthy,<\/p>\n
 “reasonable and average point of View and not on mere<\/p>\n
apprehension of any Whimsical person. The reasonable<\/p>\n
ta,<\/p>\n
mggs<\/p>\n
apprehension, it may be noted, must be based on cogent<\/p>\n
materials.\n<\/p>\n
28. In this context it would be of relevance to quote:.fr.oi”‘a<\/p>\n
the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in–A4″t11e..eac\u00a7e’i  ‘<\/p>\n
R.Vishwanathan V\/s. Abdul Wcgid (AiR…19e:3.’sc’ ‘~i’)ev\u00a7}h\u00a2:f\u00ab:in,_V it ”<\/p>\n
it is stated as follows:\n<\/p>\n
“The rate of law db_outju.diciaI’conduct is as strict<\/p>\n
as it is old. No judge can: be co:nsVidered to be
\ncompetent to hear acdse in ajhic-3h.he..is.. directly or
\nindirectly inte1_’ested. VAw;:j)roved– interest in a judge
\nnot only ‘dis’q:ialy'”ies”” him V ‘–ba.t__….:renders his
\njudgmeiztv oi ‘nutiity._’ __\u00abThere_” yetanother rule of
\njudicial conduct”wh”tch.bears upon the hearing of
\ncase, In, tF1(i:i’\ufb01.,__ the._j’udVge’ expected to be serene
\nand eoen\u00e9handed, ‘even though his patience may
\nbe sorely tried and’*the-._t1me of the court appear to
\nbewasted,  based on the maxim which is
\noften repeated” .trtat’justice should not only be
\ndone butV5h,oi–ildFbe”seen to be done. No litigant<\/p>\n
_{ should lea-u_e the court feeling reasonably that his
\n tease was not’?-teard or considered on its merit. if
\n he then justice, even though done in the<\/p>\n
 \u00a2ase,,ra\u00bb;zs—-:n the doing of it. ” ‘<\/p>\n
29.3. Tfhesaid observations were made in the context of an<\/p>\n
 :””e}.Eegation’.rnade in the said case about a friendship between<\/p>\n
  Medappa, C.J., of this court and A.Wajid and Mannaji Rao.<\/p>\n
   support of his allegation, Medappa, C.J. and Wajid were<\/p>\n
it great friends, Vishwanathan swore to a few affidavits. Some<\/p>\n
other affidavits were sworn before the Supreme Court when<\/p>\n
certain proceedings for a writ of prohibition were<\/p>\n
9:-\/\/g,<\/p>\n
W39-\n<\/p>\n
commenced. The Supreme Court considered as to whether<\/p>\n
Medappa, C.J., was so interested as to be disqualified..or_that<\/p>\n
he acted in a manner that his conduct in court    _<\/p>\n
of justice and answered that apart from the_–fac–t  <\/p>\n
Wajid denied familiarity though <\/p>\n
Medappa, C.J., there were no.\u00bbi1istances of undue leaning in <\/p>\n
favour of the executors of the   went on to
\nshow that what happer’1ed’:in  casewvasengineered by one
\nSri.Raju. as the letters of suggested.<\/p>\n
According .farr1ily which did not
\nknow how ilto    of a father, however
\nobdurate,macteril__inT s’a}\ufb01\u00e9’i\u00a7\u00a7ay with the court. Their
\nconductigun’-and gfroni_\u00bbthe:””an:1ouncement of the Full Bench<\/p>\n
was calculaltedfto cexasperate and annoy any judge who held<\/p>\n
 \u00ab..Ah1S-i.owr;~-treputation'”dear. According to the Supreme Court,<\/p>\n
   the sons of Vishwanathan was studied and<\/p>\n
designed  further their move for a different Bench.<\/p>\n
Ultima.te’ly,v the Supreme Court concluded that though<\/p>\n
A  lvv\u00a3etda,ppa C.J., had heard and decided the probate case<\/p>\n
against the family, but that circumstance was not enough to<\/p>\n
Wdisquaiify him from sitting on a Bench to hear a case in<\/p>\n
which more evidence had been let in. As far as the<\/p>\n
allegations about the conduct of Balakrishnaiah, J.. was<\/p>\n
‘%\u00a7,,<\/p>\n
_4oW<\/p>\n
concerned, there were allegations made in the affidavits<\/p>\n
stating that he had made hostile remarks against the ..e_as_e~.of<\/p>\n
Ramalingam while hearing the appeal with   _<\/p>\n
Pillai, J .. but the Supreme Court remarked: _- ”  — <\/p>\n
“U every remark of a judge made fram the _BenCh ”  ”
\nis to be construed as int,\u00a3t_cattng’.’pr’cjjudt(:e,’l- I. am
\nafraid mostjudges will fatlto pass. __ the exa’c.ttrtg\u00bb
\ntest. In the course of arguments. juaig-este)q)re,ss
\nopinions, tentatively for.rned,v–.  even
\nstrongly; but that does not always ‘mean that the
\ncase has been prejudgecl, Ar}: argument in court
\ncan never be effective  the’~.judgesI~ do not
\nsomettmes_’point out *:.vhati.,.”appears to be the
\nunderlying  in –Vthe”<,appa.r\u20acnt plausibility
\nthereof, ancifjany tatvyer or\u00ab-litigant, who forms an
\napprehension on .th'aij.sccre,–, cannot be said to be
\nreasonably iaoirngy "so'.– * It has frequently been
\nnoticed .that the'objee'tion ofa Judge breaks down
\nan a_closet,examination-and often enough, some
\njudges ar:kr2o'1;vle.:lge. publicly that they were
\nmistaken. 'Of'"\u00ab:iou:.rs"e,V if the Judge unreasonably
\nobstrucr.ts"the'.\ufb02c.w"ef an argument or does not
\nj allow it to be raised, it may be said that there has
\nf  been nofair' hearing. "\n<\/p>\n
 Onyltvheitizbasis of the above principles, the instant<\/p>\n
“,_app1icaftio;.n is considered. On a detailed consideration of the<\/p>\n
“:,l’rnate~:ia1 on record and aiso the submission made by the<\/p>\n
‘ legamed Senior counsel for the appiicant\/ respondent No.1, as<\/p>\n
‘already stated,the apprehension in the mind of the applicant<\/p>\n
with regard to Manjunath J, hearing the matter is based. on<\/p>\n
the order dated. 10.7.2009 and the newspaper reports of the<\/p>\n
.\/\/\u00ab<\/p>\n
__.41__.\n<\/p>\n
proceedings dated 10.7.2009. Apart from these two aspects ‘<\/p>\n
we do not find any other detail mentioned either…<\/p>\n
application or in the affidavits to contend that  _<\/p>\n
should not hear the appeal. In facththe en.t”ir’e—:cjo.ntroversjQ7′ <\/p>\n
has its genesis in the two learned Jiidgesnwho were he’a_I_ing.<\/p>\n
the appeal receiving a courier’ c_ontairnTng pho’tographs _:janci <\/p>\n
questioning as to how Manjunalthn   appeal.
\nit is only on account on    thehorder dated
\n10.77.2009 was passed   ‘andAA’\u00bb~t.hbe–V”proceedings of
\nthe said date:    newspapers on
\n11.7.2009.    of the controversy
\nwith  sent the courier to the
\ntwo learrledjudgesnl to obstruct the hearing of<\/p>\n
the appeal, onepthing t>”eCo’rnes clear, that is, but for the said<\/p>\n
‘ W.coritroversia.1 courier”‘which resulted in the order dated<\/p>\n
  and the consequent reporting of the<\/p>\n
procleedingsiilofilthe said date in the various newspapers, the<\/p>\n
‘x_applicantj_had no other apprehension whatsoever. In fact on<\/p>\n
‘~:l_”a_detai1ed examination of the material on record, we do not<\/p>\n
0  find any other material which is stated to be the basis of bias<\/p>\n
0’ on the part of the Manjunath J, which may be a reason for<\/p>\n
him to recuse from hearing the appeal. In fact when the<\/p>\n
issue of the receipt of courier was raised by the Bench on<\/p>\n
9:.\n<\/p>\n
W42…\n<\/p>\n
10.7.2009, learned Senior Counsel for the applicant<\/p>\n
immediately submitted that the same should be ignoredi.as<\/p>\n
respondent No.1 had full faith in the Bench  _<\/p>\n
appeal. Under the circumstances we fail to understand as to”  <\/p>\n
how the applicant can take advantage. of  <\/p>\n
with regard to the courier seni’,__to theltwo learned llul\ufb01iglles <\/p>\n
hearing the appeal and the proceedpiiigs  and
\nthe newspaper reportirgilpef lpzeoceedingllsl  contend
\nthat Manjunathpptl, is applicant and
\ntherefore, he   But for the
\ncontroversy.   sent to the learned
\nJudgeshearirigp_voi;::3:\u00a7y1e had commenced even
\nprior  other point raised in the<\/p>\n
application ltznderp”consideration. If at all there was any<\/p>\n
  in lthe~~~–n’iind of the applicant, the same could<\/p>\n
 _ liaye’ beeln .l”ex_pressed prior to the commencement of the<\/p>\n
appeal, ‘once the arguments in the appeal commenced it<\/p>\n
 is notproper on the part of any litigant or counsel to state<\/p>\n
A ffthat’–.court is biased against a particular party by relying on<\/p>\n
the order dated 10.7.2009 and the newspaper reports.<\/p>\n
31. Learned Senior Counsel who argued the application<\/p>\n
repeatedly referred to the order dated 107.2009 and<\/p>\n
W44-\n<\/p>\n
the courier to the Judges. There is no conclusion of any<\/p>\n
issue in the matter and much less a conc1usio.n*-that<\/p>\n
ISKCON, Bangalore was responsible for sendingfthle  _<\/p>\n
in the name of the opposite party. eour” <\/p>\n
considered View the contents of the order .dated  .0<\/p>\n
in no way be held to have-.__caused any .V\u00bbs’u’sp:icion; or <\/p>\n
apprehension in the mind of theV”0apxplicpant.’   <\/p>\n
32. As far as the newspaper reports’~.are[concerned,certain
\nobservations  10.7.2009 are
\nreported.    are quoted in the
\nnewspaper” be conlsi\u00e9dered in isolation. The
\nsaid quoted in the press have to be<\/p>\n
read in the”‘~icor1teX*t of the order dated 10.7.2009. If on<\/p>\n
 ~..learned”””Senior Counsel and other counsel<\/p>\n
 appearing”fni* applicant expressed their confidence I the<\/p>\n
  the matter and that applicant\/ respondent<\/p>\n
 No.1  not responsible for sending any cover with<\/p>\n
A photographers, we are unable to understand as to how the<\/p>\n
0’ newspaper reporting of certain observations of Manjunath J,<\/p>\n
“could have lead to any apprehension in the mind of the<\/p>\n
applicant. Under the circumstances we hold that the<\/p>\n
.2\/r\u00bb<\/p>\n
“.45..\n<\/p>\n
applicant has failed to make out a case in the application<\/p>\n
filed.\n<\/p>\n
33. As We have already stated that but for  _<\/p>\n
regarding the courier received by the leamved*dindg\u20ace3 Who” <\/p>\n
were hearing the appeal, the same Zwoullddzhairep  .d<\/p>\n
the usual course. We re–iterate-that when the  ;<\/p>\n
to the notice of the counsel on bothilsidpes  the receipt of
\nthe courier containing  ~a_1i.d”‘certainAAcomments.
\nboth sides openly reposedVilconiidence”-inBench and in<\/p>\n
fact the learned  Counsel ‘for.Vth’eva.p:plicant also stated<\/p>\n
that the’  obiection or grievance to the
\nBench hearing  that was the position as on<\/p>\n
10.7.2009,  nflailpto iinddcrstand as to how the order dated<\/p>\n
  and thesubsequent newspaper reporting of the<\/p>\n
  have lead to any apprehension in the mind<\/p>\n
of <\/p>\n
‘g_g34. Atthis stage it would be of relevance to refer to the<\/p>\n
A f_”eitati–ons relied upon on both sides.<\/p>\n
Learned Senior counsel for the applicant has cited the<\/p>\n
it Wfollowing decisions:\n<\/p>\n
_45m<\/p>\n
35. The case of P.K.Ghosh & another Vs. J.G.Rajput<\/p>\n
reported in (1995) 6 sec 744 has been cited to J contend<\/p>\n
that the Apex Court noted in the said decision theta’   _<\/p>\n
Judge of the Gujrat High Court should not have    <\/p>\n
hearing the contempt petition inspite of:  .9<\/p>\n
which was not an unreasonable -one onthe undisputed facts.  ,<\/p>\n
That if there be a basis  cannot treated as
\nunreasonabie for a  to   should
\nnot be heard by a particular\u00bb  there is no
\ncompelling   an alternative, it
\nis appropriate   recuse himself from the
\nBench  in the said case were
\nthat a   suspended by the Municipal<\/p>\n
Corpo_r_ation”‘had ch’a11e:_1ge’d the said order of suspension and<\/p>\n
 V.  .:f3eth.na [sinceelevated as a Judge) appeared and had<\/p>\n
 obtaineVd.”oifVder of stay of the suspension. However, the<\/p>\n
co’ntempt.prcceedings were initiated against the Corporation<\/p>\n
 since thley had not complied with an undertaking mentioned<\/p>\n
A  of a compromise dated 28.2.1990. The said<\/p>\n
9’ contempt proceeding was registered as Misc.Cv1.Application<\/p>\n
W184} \/ 1993 which came up before a Division Bench of Gujrat<\/p>\n
High Court, one of whom was Mr.Justice B.J.Sethna and<\/p>\n
notice was issued returnable on 29.12.1993. When it came<\/p>\n
91%
\nif<\/p>\n
._47..\n<\/p>\n
up for hearing before the said Bench, objection was raised
\nthat it should not be heard by the said Bench because<\/p>\n
Mr.Justice B.J.Sethna had appeared as a counsel or; the<\/p>\n
\ufb01rst hearing. This request was not acceded to. the<\/p>\n
same objection was raised on 10.3.1994 but  it<\/p>\n
On 18.3.1994 notice was issued and~enquiryi’proceedings,<\/p>\n
initiated against the complainant .we’re   ._<\/p>\n
the order dated 18.3.1994 Spefcialp Lea”ve__ PetitiVon:..;vVas “\ufb01led ‘ it<\/p>\n
before the Supreme Court. In:the”said..pASpecial..Lea*}e it was
\nopined that Sethna. J,  :.iigi’v?\u00e9,.j heard the matter in<\/p>\n
the contempt p\u00a2t\u00abition_:.””‘lhs’: case are quite<\/p>\n
differeritllfrorniithe  present case, as the present
\napplication’ \u00abarises”op1iV_llaccoii’nt of the developments which<\/p>\n
have occurred p’durVi’ngA’the*”pendency of the appeal after the<\/p>\n
‘ff’~._ConiIrienceInent of”-~it\u00absV hearing and therefore while we<\/p>\n
  to the Views expressed by the<\/p>\n
 in the said decision, we find that the same<\/p>\n
cannot.  applied in View of the facts of the present case.<\/p>\n
‘   it In the case of State of West Bengal & Others Vs.<\/p>\n
if W\u00e9hivananda Pathak 82. Others reported in (1998) 5 SCC<\/p>\n
513, the facts were that six Assistant Computers had \ufb01led a<\/p>\n
writ petition seeking promotion to the post of Inspector of<\/p>\n
m48m<\/p>\n
minimum wages, Inspector of Trade Unions, other<\/p>\n
Inspectors, Investigators, Supervisors etc., of <\/p>\n
Bengal Sub–ordinate Labour Service. The said xvliit’ _<\/p>\n
came up for hearing before Mr.Justice Ajit KL_1nia\u00ab1?. it  <\/p>\n
(since retired}. The writ petition was__al1oWtei:l  f<\/p>\n
that Assistant Computers be promoted’ vvithit-effect  <\/p>\n
13.3.1980. The said direction  alfiumber
\nof affected employees   filed  appeal
\nbefore the Division  the Division
\nBench modi\ufb01ed”‘i:;the   directing the
\nauthorities   of promotion of
\nthe appelltanltii  in accordance with
\nlaw. it  disposed the appeal. In<\/p>\n
compliance  the sa*idn’iVrectior1 the State of West Bengal<\/p>\n
   emp’l’o3*–ees. Two years later some of the<\/p>\n
  earlier \ufb01led a writ petition \ufb01led another<\/p>\n
writpetition’praying for payment of arrears otlsalary and<\/p>\n
‘,_a11ow’anc2es with effect from 13.3.1980 in “terms of the<\/p>\n
it ‘\u00bb.:ijJi1dlg’rnent and order dated 218.2004’ passed by Mr.Justice<\/p>\n
‘   ‘Ktimar Sen Gupta. The said writ petition was disposed<\/p>\n
  and the said Judgment was challenged before the<\/p>\n
Supreme Court. One of the contentions raised was that Ajit<\/p>\n
Kumar Sen Gupta. J, who had expressed his views as a<\/p>\n
M49.”\n<\/p>\n
singie Judge in the first writ petition should not have sat\u00bb on<\/p>\n
the same Bench between the same parties though initiated<\/p>\n
on a subsequent writ petition. The question, thei’cfo1*e_-_’_in*a.3; <\/p>\n
whether Ajit Kumar Sen Gupta. J , could sit_o_nEthe’ :1:):ivision”l  S <\/p>\n
Bench to decide the appeal against;\n<\/p>\n
the second Writ petition. After referring to  <\/p>\n
bias the Apex Court held that not Ajit
\nKumar Sen Gupta. th’e”Sench in
\nwhich the impugned .as_i__he had already
\nexpressed his   apetition which was
\noyer ruled.  himself from the
\nBenched”   theVWStupreiI1e Court made a
\ndistinctic-nilbetween.\u00bb of facts specifically relating<\/p>\n
to a party,  “aga’i–.nst_ preconceptions or pre–dispositions<\/p>\n
 general questions of law, policy or discretion. The<\/p>\n
 tiniplication Ayplthat in the former case, a judge would dis\u00bb<\/p>\n
  in the latter case, he may not. However,<\/p>\n
‘,Heniphasis\u00ab:_on this decision by the applicant is on the tests for<\/p>\n
A .11’ bias” namely “real likelihood of bias” or “reasonable suspicion<\/p>\n
 <51; hias" on which de Smith in Judicial Review of<\/p>\n
 "Administrative Action has explained that "reasonable<\/p>\n
suspicion test looks mainly to outward appearance while<\/p>\n
"real likelihood" test focuses on the court's own evaluation of<\/p>\n
'$50..\n<\/p>\n
the probabilities. However, on account of the reasons that
\nwe have assigned while considering the application, we \ufb01nd
\nthat the said decision is not applicable to the fact.sVV_ic.f_:’ithe<\/p>\n
present case. _.\n<\/p>\n
37. In the case of G.N.Nayak Vs. Goa   <\/p>\n
Others reported in (200212 SCC :’?12′,”it  liham\/Alt <\/p>\n
not every kind of bias which in law   tollvitiatre _<\/p>\n
It must be a prejudice whichV1s__ir1~ot founded reasonsland it<\/p>\n
actuated by se1f–intere,st–whet1*;er. “fpe’cuniarv “or .-personal.<\/p>\n
Since bias is consideredhtoybe’ p\u00e9:Xte\u00a3ision of principles of<\/p>\n
naturai’lVju’stio\u00a7;f, Vi*1Or’I’1’1}c’l’I1  be a Judge in his own
\ncause.  ‘li.tiganvtVtio~_succ’ess–ful1y impugn an action must<\/p>\n
establish  rea,sonab_ie’*~”fpossibiiity of bias or prove<\/p>\n
 ..Vcirc.uii1st.ances from ——– –Which the operation of influences<\/p>\n
 affVecting.v’a’ifair:’ assessment of the merits of the case can be<\/p>\n
ini’eri’ed.  said case the facts related to the selection to<\/p>\n
 a post of Professor of Marine Science in the University of Goa<\/p>\n
it  that context, it was stated that it is not every kind of<\/p>\n
‘  bias vwhich in law is taken to vitiate an act. If a senior officer<\/p>\n
 expresses appreciation of the work of a junior in the<\/p>\n
con\ufb01dential report, it would not amount to bias nor would it<\/p>\n
preclude that senior officer from being part of the<\/p>\n
3<\/span><\/p>\n
\/\/fr<\/p>\n
-51..\n<\/p>\n
Departmental Promotion Committee to consider such junior<\/p>\n
officers along with others for promotion.<\/p>\n
38. In the case of Satish Jaggi Vs. State of  _<\/p>\n
82. Others reported in (2007 (3) SCC 62,  C4 W <\/p>\n
at Raipur had not shown any dis;inc1i.nation “C C<\/p>\n
matter although his brother was  to
\nheavy weight which according    could
\nnot stand in the way  judicial\ufb02xfunction
\nimpartially without fear   of the said
\ncase was    Sessions Judge
\nbefore whom?  elder brother of
\nsitting   father of one of the
\nmain a.cc’usged.l court was at the final stage<\/p>\n
and about 150 _:prio.s’ecu’tion: witnesses and all the defence<\/p>\n
” V’v.*I1tne.sses.A*-ewere examined and what remained to be done in<\/p>\n
   the arguments and post the judgment,<\/p>\n
 prayerlvltilhefore the Chattisgarh High Court for<\/p>\n
 ltzjansferring the petition was rejected, against which, an<\/p>\n
   filed before the Supreme Court. in the said<\/p>\n
 ___”‘l’deci;sion the Supreme Court opined that “A judicial offzlcer in<\/p>\n
it “V.tol1atever capacity he may be functioning has to act with the<\/p>\n
belief that he is not to be guided by any factor other than to<\/p>\n
ensure that he shall render a free and fair decision, which<\/p>\n
he <\/p>\n
f<\/p>\n
__  …\n<\/p>\n
according to his conscience is the right one on the basis of the
\nmaterials placed before him. There can be no exceptions to<\/p>\n
this imperative, but at the same time there should not <\/p>\n
scope given to any person to go away with thefeeiing<\/p>\n
Judge was biased, however unfounded the irnpressiionprndy’ _ <\/p>\n
be.” In the above view, the Suprerne’ ‘f;ourt’  <\/p>\n
ensure that justice is not only done, vi:-ut”also seen to be ‘done ~_<\/p>\n
and on the peculiar facts of the”‘sa’1d case; despite  sure
\nthat the Sessions Judge’ x1\u00a7r0u1dt’ha*.teac’te_d in the true sense
\nof a judicial officer, feit app’ro’1;3riate  the case to<\/p>\n
some other Se_ss–ion-s Cour:   bykznaking clear that<\/p>\n
the tr;:’nsfe’rA..  be construed as casting any
\naspersions on the’}e’arned”‘Sessions Judge. We have taken<\/p>\n
note of thisbdecision andiiave acted accordingiy keeping in<\/p>\n
“V ‘~  ‘mind”th.>e _obrservation–s\u00ab rnade therein.<\/p>\n
39:. “tint   of Rattan Lat Shanna Vs. Managing<\/p>\n
 Comrnit’tee,h Dr.Hari Ram (Co-Education) Higher<\/p>\n
 \u00bbSecog1dcir~y School 32, Others reported in (1993) 4 sec 10,<\/p>\n
—  the” test of bias has been indicated by stating that it is<\/p>\n
 Wvirhether a reasonabie intelhgent man, fully apprised of ail<\/p>\n
the circumstances, would feel a serious apprehension of<\/p>\n
bias. In the said case reference has been made to several<\/p>\n
tee<\/p>\n
V ,k. “.i_..y iL’s1’t’\\..5,.’;-“,g;,:’t_,,V,’;’.’?’<\/p>\n
-53-<\/span><\/p>\n
English decisions and I-Ialsbury’s Laws of England, 4*”<\/p>\n
Edition, Vol.2 para 551.\n<\/p>\n
40. Lastly, the order of the Supreme Court   M<\/p>\n
in R.P.No.999\/2009 in SLP (C) 5939\/2009 was-cited  drairsf  <\/p>\n
our attention to the fact that even after.,the disrr_1pis–sa1V.Ct1:ie <\/p>\n
Special Leave Petition VVh\u20ac1’1V,’th”\u20ac petii_ioner  .\u00a2x;5re;;.s\u00e9a <\/p>\n
that one of the Judges was biasledjdtiringCthelihearing and in
\nView of the said appreherisiton ‘p_etiti–oner, theudismissai
\nof Special Leave Petition  matter was
\ndirected to be plaizedbeiioreg  for consideration.<\/p>\n
We have aisio\ufb02 ‘order of the Supreme
\nCourt      V <\/p>\n
41. Learned’   “for the respondent in the<\/p>\n
application” has cited  fo_1.iowing decisions:\n<\/p>\n
42. pin the “ea_se=ot’ M’.Y.Sharee_f 82. another Vs. Hon’bie<\/p>\n
 C’  iaf the Nalglgp\ufb01fd\ufb02igh Court and Others reported in<\/p>\n
  ‘I  is with regard to an application for the<\/p>\n
traiisier of’ttie’l::case from the Bench hearing it to another<\/p>\n
‘<.BenchA1':he High Court on the basis that the observations<\/p>\n
A .,:C.andC"i*eference to the Supreme Court by Rao 8: Deo JJ,<\/p>\n
C  created bonafide belief in the app}.icant's mind that they were<\/p>\n
45,,<\/p>\n
_.  ..\n<\/p>\n
prejudiced against him and had made up their minds and
\nindicated that he shall have to go in appeal to the Supreme<\/p>\n
Court. The High Court held that the application for<\/p>\n
constituted contempt because the Judges  .<\/p>\n
with a View to divert justice, the twomadvoca’te’s—-t\u00e9\\;*l1o”e.signea:1l’ <\/p>\n
and prosecuted the applicatior1:i.__we_reffotlndl  <\/p>\n
contempt. The Supreme Court held that wl*lenv:4_the1f:e is <\/p>\n
conflict between an obligation olfl’a;co_unsel’to:lthe cioutt and
\nhis duty to the client,  the forrnerxixiiiich prevails in the
\nfollowing words,_ “when   applications or<\/p>\n
pleadings contairliintjg matter” the court without<\/p>\n
reasonalalpl  _:tJce_’n1selilesl about the prima facie
\nexistence. ofeaclequateglrorln.:ls–~therefor, with a view to prevent<\/p>\n
or delay the V_lCO!i1″.S\u20ac’A”{)_fll”_]:Il.LStiC\u20ac’, are themselves guilty of<\/p>\n
 ()f\u00ab.courtllartd’that it is no duty of a counsel to his<\/p>\n
    interest in such applications; on the other<\/p>\n
hantit  is to advise his client for refraining from<\/p>\n
_ H    making lallelgations of this nature in such applications
\nit ” x4’3~;e.__ Invlthe case of Radha Mohan La! Vs. Rajasthan High<\/p>\n
.’   (Jaipur Bench) reported in (2003) 3 sec 427 it is<\/p>\n
 “held that the initiation of proceedings for contempt of court<\/p>\n
was on the basis of the averments made in para 4 of the<\/p>\n
1;-.=.,_;1.;\u00bb.;a:”=g,,e=,2,(.i:–l,.*;:a1:u<\/p>\n
_ 55 _
\napplication dated 18.9.1991 made before a learned single<\/p>\n
Judge of the said court in a Civil Revision petition which ‘was<\/p>\n
listed before the learned judge. The applicant  u<\/p>\n
some observations made by the learned Judge     <\/p>\n
in the course of hearing argurnentjledto \ufb01alzpout  s’en\u00abior”;<\/p>\n
citizens representing to the Chief Jul’stiee_tl1at  petition ~.<\/p>\n
heard by some other Judge.    lthelllinatter 11<\/p>\n
came up for hearing before the.1learned”-single’judge: the fact
\nof representation havinglbeg-.:n  Chief Justice was
\ngiven out and  led  application dated
\n18.9.1991.   to initiation of
\nproceecliil1gs”r1:’r::3V5;f_v  of and the finding of
\ncontempt. and .andp:Apltt:1ishment on the appellants as<\/p>\n
well as his advocate. A”v’_lT”he”ilsame was challenged before the<\/p>\n
 \u00ab.._Sup’rem;e.r.:C0urt, lwhicliupheld the Judgment but accepted<\/p>\n
 apology of appellant and set aside the punishment of<\/p>\n
siinple imprisonment and also the fine imposed on him.<\/p>\n
lwy_pHoweverl,}_the Supreme Court held that the liberty of free<\/p>\n
{expression cannot be equated or confused with a licence to<\/p>\n
‘  make unfounded and irresponsible allegations against the<\/p>\n
1’ Wjudiciary as the effect is lowering of the dignity and authority<\/p>\n
of the court and an affront to the majesty of justice.<\/p>\n
Referring to the case of Shamsher Singh Bedi Vs. Hglgh<\/p>\n
&<\/p>\n
fr<\/p>\n
_55_<\/p>\n
Court of Punjab 82. Haryana reported in [1996] 7 SCC 99
\nthe court held that an advocate cannot escape his<\/p>\n
responsibility for drafting a scandalous notieenfi-o”‘*.Va<\/p>\n
Magistrate on the ground that he did so in  ‘<\/p>\n
capacity. An advocate is not mereiyan agent ior’t’;m*vgni  it<\/p>\n
his client. he is an officer of the:”:co13’_rt;~ He <\/p>\n
towards the court. There ca1i_b’-eznothing more seri<ox–rthan  '<\/p>\n
an act of an advocate if it tends to impede,_ obistmct or
\nprevent the administra,ti0_nrofj ;I.aw.f; it destroys the
\ncon\ufb01dence of the people in <\/p>\n
44. Refererme 3:A::illZ{1S’vI:I1aC,k$. to;  .decision in the case of<\/p>\n
M.B.Sa.nghi  of Punjab 82. Haryana
\nreported “in   600 wherein it is said that “the<\/p>\n
tendency. of  the reputation of judicial officers by<\/p>\n
.d\u00e9sgrt:ntle.d.4eiements who fail to secure the desired order is<\/p>\n
 and it is high time it is nipped in the bud.<\/p>\n
And; wiien-id member of the profession resorts to such cheap<\/p>\n
 jgimniieks: with a view to browbeating the Judge into<\/p>\n
  ‘tsluisniission, it is all the more painful. When there is a<\/p>\n
  wcieliberate attempt to scandaiise which would shake the<\/p>\n
con\ufb01dence of the titigant public in the system the damage
\ncaused is not only to the reputation of the Judge concerned<\/p>\n
but also to the fair name of the judiciary. flit\/g\/3<\/p>\n
mall-.;..e -.z a V _  ,. , .e, \u00bb <\/p>\n
-57..\n<\/p>\n
…….. .. Such cases raise larger issues touching the
\nindependence of not only the Judge concerned but the entire<\/p>\n
institution. ……. .. It is high time that we realise thqtlma-eh<\/p>\n
cherished judicial independence has to be protected’ ‘hot  _<\/p>\n
from the executive or the legislature but dlso_frorti::’ \u00abwholl  <\/p>\n
are an integral part of the system  I<\/p>\n
45. In the case of Chetak   = L’<\/p>\n
Prakash 82. Others reported yinV:\ufb01i.998) 4.’SCC_5?f\u00a77 it was
\nstated that no lawyer or shcsaldlllvbel’permitted to brow<\/p>\n
beat the court orvmal\u00a7.gn*theV?resid.iv11gx:lT)flicer to obtain<\/p>\n
favourable’ orders. .71 and litigants cannot be
\na\ufb02owedlto l”\u00abterroriZef_’~.or<..'%ir;.tir;1idate" Judges with a View to<\/p>\n
"secure? orders," whichhtheyhwant and that any attempt made<\/p>\n
 ~._on  of the\ufb02litigant to go "forum shopping" or to have<\/p>\n
  "'.'forum" must be crashed with the heavy<\/p>\n
handl  at the same time it was stated that Judges<\/p>\n
'hnmust impartially referees and decide cases objectively<\/p>\n
V' lffuAn'iln\ufb02.uenced by any personal bias or prejudice. In the said<\/p>\n
'   'learned single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court<\/p>\n
ll "having been appraised of the facts and circumstances of the<\/p>\n
case did not Continue to hear the appeal but while<\/p>\n
technically recusing himself had made certain comments so<\/p>\n
-1 6 rev .1. . .:’,\u00a2:u’..’a I . d”.k?U,.’<\/p>\n
m_58W<\/p>\n
as to give vent to his feelings. The question arose before the<\/p>\n
Supreme Court as to whether the learned sing1_eg;ii.idge<\/p>\n
should have continued to hear the appeal or recriisel  .<\/p>\n
While referring to the said comments at .pai’aE;’.OV”vo\u00a7’\u00ab.\ufb02ied’ <\/p>\n
Judgment, the Supreme Court he}d.14that,it  <\/p>\n
learned Judge to hold an eriqui-iy intovthe   talte <\/p>\n
appropriate action. It is reievanttoystate   instant
\ncase in the order dated  la’ l.,3i1Qi\u00a2ct.ion vrasltvissued to
\nboth the parties to file   the sending of
\nthe courier     comments to the
\nJudges   has been no pre–\n<\/p>\n
judging or coiicviusidn in g the matter.<\/p>\n
46.  the t”‘\u00bb..iH.Subbarao Vs. Southern<\/p>\n
Petrocfv1emicat$.VVI:1dtgsfries Corporation Limited &<\/p>\n
  ;g_reportecAil”izi——AH{ 2002 Andhra Pradesh 183 the<\/p>\n
 tfacts” the matter was heard by the Bench in the<\/p>\n
foienoon  again the case was taken up at 2.i5p.m. At<\/p>\n
lthat lti.rrile\u00ab.._ counsel for the appellant stated that the writ<\/p>\n
it lfpetiti\u00abon be posted before some other Bench since one of the<\/p>\n
‘  iearned Judges on the Bench (Dr.A.R.Lakshmanan, J. as he<\/p>\n
 “then was) had taken a View that the Writ petition against<\/p>\n
Southern Petrochemicals was not maintainabie, as it was<\/p>\n
1”  .,l a. ‘.,,’\u00a33′ 5′ . 5 *1′-J.,) :’ 2 1.2 U U Z’<\/p>\n
M 59 V’WVn
\nneither an instrumentality nor an authority of the State.
\nWhile directing the Registry to place the matter ‘before
\nanother Bench the court opined as follows: V<\/p>\n
“It is unfortunate  …th_at _~’sucii..f\u00bb la’
\nrepresentation was made by the learned counsel ‘<\/p>\n
forthe appellant\/ petitioner sli-nce[“or;e ofusdhas  <\/p>\n
taken the View while decidingland’-identicalcase  ‘
\nagainst the very spme Corporation as ea Judge-.QfV
\nMadras High Court.  is. settled *1a._w that
\ncounsel and parties cannot-,choose’tl<1e Bench
\nand Bench hunti:ig.V_is d.-eprec.ated-…_ We are Very
\nmuch disturbed in regard to tknemrepresentation
\nmade. We are thereforegnot _.i.ncV1_ined_ to hear<\/p>\n
this matter,.'_'   _ u<\/p>\n
47. Two decisi;-ns .reported”‘V.’l”I’993} 3 sec 151<\/p>\n
(s.A.Kzig};}id’  Lai”8);’ another) and (2004) 3
\nsec 363 union of India 3;, Others) have<\/p>\n
beencited to  newspaper reports, being only<\/p>\n
‘St’v.hearsay_—,evidence “cannot be relied upon for initiating<\/p>\n
  and that it is too much to attribute<\/p>\n
authenticity:’i_ credibility to any information or the fact<\/p>\n
lgumerely. because it found publication in a newspaper or<\/p>\n
fj;oui’nal or magazine or any other form of communication as<\/p>\n
‘  though it is gospel truth. Reliance is placed on the said<\/p>\n
 “decision is in the context of the applicant attempting to<\/p>\n
make out a case of bias on the basis of the newspaper<\/p>\n
reports dated 11.7.2009 with regard to the proceedings held<\/p>\n
‘V77! 69 V’WW
\non 10.7.2009. Though the deponent was present in court on<\/p>\n
10.7.2009 when certain observations had been made by<\/p>\n
Manjunath J, {which fact is evident from his affidavitfetiie<\/p>\n
applicant did not perceive any suspicion of  V’<\/p>\n
observations made by the 1earne.d>*”J.1.1dge_” ‘i’)2.009’…, <\/p>\n
However, what is stated in the  <\/p>\n
reporting of the said observationsin the press had~._:given’:rise * C<\/p>\n
to an apprehension in the min_d.VVof..thep applicant  there<\/p>\n
was bias on the part of    _\n<\/p>\n
48. Two other decisions reportediin-“{1v9Q_8,) .1 sec 1 (State<\/p>\n
of Rajgistfidrt    82. Others] and (2001) 2
\nKLJ 1 ti\ufb01tate of  Others Vs. B.Krishna Bhat<\/p>\n
82. Others}  reg.ard”v.tof”the administrative powers of Chief<\/p>\n
‘0 0’ vtlustice :_i-so constitute”‘Benches providing roster and transfer<\/p>\n
_fcase’sc.h’ave..”beei3″ cited in the context of the order dated<\/p>\n
 by the Hon’b1e Chief Justice on the<\/p>\n
administrative side directing that the matter be posted before<\/p>\n
A f\ufb01erach headed by Manjunath J. We do not have any View<\/p>\n
‘  contrary to what has been stated in the said decisions.<\/p>\n
0 HHHowever, despite the allocation of work by the Chief Justice<\/p>\n
of a court it is the prerogative of the concerned Judge to<\/p>\n
recuse himself from hearing the matter if the facts and<\/p>\n
_ 61 _
\ncircumstances present a situation which necessitates a<\/p>\n
Judge from recusing himseif in a matter. Therefore, While it<\/p>\n
is the duty of a judge to dispose of the cases a11ocat_edV’Vby*VtheV.<\/p>\n
Chief Justice of a court, the propriety not to   <\/p>\n
lies with the concerned Judge.\n<\/p>\n
49. The reasons we have assigned on”th~e issue of <\/p>\n
supported by the decisions and keeping  the <\/p>\n
precedents cited on both sides, vuvveibare of’  view that
\nthe application being  “~–.*.I”1P.br”i’t._ deserves to be
\ndismissed. If the appellant fullthe Bench, we<\/p>\n
fail to   totivihy thewappellant would have sent
\nthe courier  J, not to hear the matter. If<\/p>\n
the res_pond’ent”a1sVQ–_ had Vfutll faith in the Bench, then we fail<\/p>\n
 *  to understand asttttohow the respondent would have sent the<\/p>\n
   of the appellant. The truth however, has<\/p>\n
 by a thorough investigation. We therefore<\/p>\n
 cannot aiiovv the matter to rest.\n<\/p>\n
 this stage it would be pertinent to refer to two<\/p>\n
 letters dated 15.7.2009 and 24.7.2009 Written by<\/p>\n
 Sri.S.V.Srtnivasan and Sri.S.Shekar Shetty, Advocates and<\/p>\n
received by the Private Secretary of Manjunath J., at his<\/p>\n
-62..\n<\/p>\n
chambers in the court. On reading of the said letters, it<\/p>\n
gives an impression that the applicant\/respondent]”No.1<\/p>\n
herein have tried to get the authors of the sai.d~..l.ette_rs’ <\/p>\n
appear on its behalf. It is a matter of record;.._v’ic_1.e lo1’der:<\/p>\n
dated 7.8.2009 that the authorsrhofl thesaidi’ ‘ivereV\u00ab<\/p>\n
erstwhile senior and colleague respectively to :lviar1jttna’th”J.l’–<\/p>\n
The said letters state that Sri;’S…}&..Maruti._l1’ras’adt;ifldvocate V<\/p>\n
and Sri.V.Ramesh Bahia;..AdV0c’ate’V…hade-approached: them to
\nappear in this appeal   to do so.\n<\/p>\n
Under the circ.vu.m&staI1cef:.=’sl   the submission
\nmade by  ::Senior Counsel for the
\napp1ica.ntl’lo’n~:..f?v said two advocates had
\ndenied   authors of the said letters<\/p>\n
addressed to ‘M.a1’:guAi1atl*i” J. a direction. was given to<\/p>\n
 *   Prasad”and V.Ramesh Babu, Advocates to file<\/p>\n
  collecting the copies of the said letters in<\/p>\n
thelcourtl itself. But, the said letters were not received<\/p>\n
begin the.  hall. However, on 18.8.2009 a memo \ufb01led<\/p>\n
if lffseeliing a direction to the Registry to furnish a copy of the<\/p>\n
‘  letter written. by the two advocates so as to \ufb01le the affidavit.<\/p>\n
m”Il’ll1e fact remains that there is no affidavit \ufb01led by the<\/p>\n
concerned advocates.\n<\/p>\n
W53W<\/p>\n
51. It would not be out of context to mention the roie of a<\/p>\n
Judge in an Advesarial System of Administration of Justice.<\/p>\n
It is said that the Judge is nothing but the law speel{itig”e:’2uaid<\/p>\n
a good Judge conceives quickly, judges slowly.  <\/p>\n
of the Judge to enquire not only into ’tile .ma%j’ter.,ll< itiLo[the..<\/p>\n
circumstances of the matter. A Jii\u00abdge__\ufb01iust"i3_ear  <\/p>\n
that when he tries a case he is._li1mse1t'on trial  he * V<\/p>\n
put on his robes, he put off his.r'elation to any: lffhen the
\nJudges are put in an  .'\u00a3AOlc.'lFC1:':,"Vl;1'itE1;iVL"jli'S!;iCrto is "also in "an
\nivory toviter; It would also-be re'lev2;trit.Vf_'fI3t: Rose E.Bird.<\/p>\n
American Jurist a;iid_.Chief ;.lustice,i. Clalifornia State Supreme<\/p>\n
Court Vxthi) lvsai'-:,l;riV1'i i978;  V<\/p>\n
  To Sorrielextertt the questioning of the
\neourts 'simply'*paf't of the increased attention<\/p>\n
V.  that has been paid to all our institutiorls over the
\n., {past several  What concerns me is that the
\n focus .of~this questioning of the courts seems\u00bb to be
\nT  rtot'\u00bb_on"m_at–ters of substance but rather on points
\n of prejudtee and personal pique. A judge's
\nV ' integrllLy;i"fatrness, temperament and knowledge
\n off  law are all pertinent areas for public
\ninquiry. However, what is happening instead is<\/p>\n
..  that judges are being perceived as easy targets
\n"and are being portrayed in a manner calculated<\/p>\n
to Create prejudice in the public mind. "<\/p>\n
it  If thelforum of the judicial process is allowed to mount<\/p>\n
scurrilous attack on a judge, the t;uest.ioi'i arises whether the<\/p>\n
forum of the judicial process of viiification of the juclges or<\/p>\n
M64w<\/p>\n
imputations to the judges in the pleadings presented to the
\ncourt would give liberty of freedom of expression_l'-.t_:o@_an<\/p>\n
advocate or a litigant.\n<\/p>\n
53. The above question was raised in the lcauseifof in “Re <\/p>\n
Dr.D.C.Saxena and Dr. D.C.Saxenci\u00a7 lll\ufb01lionterrinori’f,lio’ny’vble’ the<\/p>\n
Chief Justice of India reported in   SC  1, <\/p>\n
a case which called to strike ‘ajlbalance’betwe’ennV”freeldom of of<\/p>\n
speech and contempt, the forrnel’;bein’g..a salz’i’tory”Vright in a
\nliberal democratic  Court upheld the<\/p>\n
freedom of expression as one of  basic conditions for the<\/p>\n
progressmof’  thelldevelopment of every man
\nincluding the leglala’i1*ater_nitypracticing the profession of law.<\/p>\n
According to the slupi+_em–\u00e9’ Court. the advocate or the party<\/p>\n
  appeiaring .__in pe’rs–on’,’ therefore, is given the liberty of<\/p>\n
 V  they equally owe countervailing duty to<\/p>\n
n1aii1tain*”fdis_;’nity. decorum and order in the court<\/p>\n
 proceedings or judicial process. The liberty of free<\/p>\n
A \u00bb expi\ufb01ession is not to be confounded or confused with licence<\/p>\n
to inake unfounded allegations against any institution, much<\/p>\n
do  less the judiciary. The court further held as follows:<\/p>\n
“….when an advocate or a party appearing before
\nthe court requires to conduct himself in a manner
\nbefitting to the dignity and decorum of the court,<\/p>\n
1%<\/p>\n
M65-\n<\/p>\n
he cannot have a free licence to indulge in writing<\/p>\n
in the pleadings the scurriious accusations 7o_r’;_
\nscandalisation against the Judge or the court}  to
\nthe reputation and dignity of the Judge;’-iigho ‘A ;_.
\ndecides the case are allowed to be prescribed ‘in
\nthe pleadings, the respect for the co_u_r’t=,wouEd
\nquickly disappear and ir_Ldep_ende’-nce ” of the;
\njudiciary would be a thing of the past.*”_ -I ‘A i  –<\/p>\n
54. The court further said””t_hat the  reauire a<\/p>\n
degree of detachment o’i>je’c’ti’vvi:ty judicial’dispensation,<\/p>\n
they being duty bound vvith  taken by them<\/p>\n
in adjudicatinglthe  the court. The
\nobjectivity obtained if the judges
\nhave  shoulders for fear of
\nharassmeiit  ht irresponsible demands for
\nprosecutio:1j_’_,’  to refrain from discharging their<\/p>\n
 upe.ndingV” iiirther\u00e9 action.\n<\/p>\n
   of in Re: S.Mu1gaokar reported in AIR<\/p>\n
1973 so 72% his Lordship Krishna Iyer, J., in his divergent<\/p>\n
 :”view_ and in his inimrriitable style has given the broad<\/p>\n
 guidelines based on precedentially validated judicial norms<\/p>\n
 …i.nE the matter of the courts’ jurisdiction to initiate<\/p>\n
it proceedings for contempt suo rnotu, \ufb01e held that after<\/p>\n
evaluating the totality of factors, if the court considers the
\nattack on the judge or the judges scurrilous, offensive,<\/p>\n
.__\ufb01;\/-t<\/p>\n
aggw<\/p>\n
intimidatory or malicious beyond condonable limits, the
\nstrong arm of the law must, in the name of public interest<\/p>\n
and public justice, strike a blow on him who challengeps.y:the<\/p>\n
supremacy of the rule of law by fouling  <\/p>\n
stream.\n<\/p>\n
56. In the said opinion reference was -made”to”3. decision<\/p>\n
Queen V\/s Gray (1900) 2 Ai31).._i36)V’to. ldistiriguish._Vbief;;veeri.ii;<\/p>\n
any act done or writing published,-sj_calculat_ed  bring a
\ncourt or a judge of the~–..cburt’&.iint_oiclcinteinpt, or to lower his
\nauthority whichis a classs:.of.co–nt:ernp’t ofcourt and any act<\/p>\n
done publishecfcalciilated to obstruct or interfere
\nwith  due’  or the lawful process of the<\/p>\n
courts which is another ciass of contempt. The former class<\/p>\n
 \u00ab–._Abe1or1gsA–.ito\u00abthe category of scandalizing a court or a judge.<\/p>\n
  Aniotheit.flistinction has been accepted in the case of<\/p>\n
 fiublication Ltd. V\/s. State of Maharashtra<\/p>\n
  I SO 221)where it is said that the distinction made<\/p>\n
A  between a mere libel or defamation of a judge and what<\/p>\n
amounts to a contempt of the court. According to the<\/p>\n
“Supreme Court, the test in each case would be whether the<\/p>\n
impugned publication is a mere defamatory attack on the<\/p>\n
judge or whether it is calculated to interfere with the due<\/p>\n
_w””‘;,<\/p>\n
i…67M<\/p>\n
course of justice or the proper administration of law by this<\/p>\n
court. It is only in the latter case that it will be punishable<\/p>\n
as contempt. Alternatively, the test will be <\/p>\n
wrong is done to the judge personally or  to  <\/p>\n
public. The publication of a disparaging’ stat.eni1fent will <\/p>\n
injury to the public if it tendsto createan appreliensi-onviin<\/p>\n
the minds of the people regaidiiig the”i.ntegrity,7_ahility or<\/p>\n
fairness of the judge to’.v’ldlete.r:’alctua1 and prospective
\nlitigants from placing   the court’s
\nadministration..:fQf-.  likely to cause
\nembarassnient”–.in”the l’lthe.\u00ab Judge himself in the<\/p>\n
discharge of  judicia.,lv.d.utie_s.–
\n5’7. V’According~tfo,,the S1.1pT\u00a2In\u20ac Court, it is open to any one<\/p>\n
to expressfaixg. reaso11at;1,e’j’and legitimate criticism of any act<\/p>\n
orv_~c3ondjAur:t of a”‘}’I,1__d_g\u20ac in his judicial capacity or even to<\/p>\n
‘ make a ‘proper__ and fair comment on any decision given by<\/p>\n
hirn.ibeca:1″se”justice is not a cloistered virtue and she must<\/p>\n
be l.alloii\u00e9red’to suffer the scrutiny and respectful, even though<\/p>\n
 H out.sp0vl\u00a7en, comments of ordinary rnen.” However, that does<\/p>\n
not ‘mean that a litigant or a member of a public can wrongly<\/p>\n
l   assume that he is privileged to say that he can say anything<\/p>\n
against a judge. The judges are expected to perf rm their<\/p>\n
.\/<\/p>\n
sage<\/p>\n
duties in accordance with law, but they cannot be maligned
\nfor that protection must be extended to them so that”=are<\/p>\n
able to function fearlessly.\n<\/p>\n
58. In this context, it is relevant t:o’erefei’.._to. :the”l:\u00a7ase’i1rof<\/p>\n
CHARAN LAL SAHU V. UN1oN___oF lmriim, ;.~’\u00a2’;’5.:\u00bbi~t..:s;:1Hi:ti1 Ainslie\u00bb<\/p>\n
1988 SC 107, wherein Ia petition”\u00abv’srasVVfiled.”bit  eitperienced
\nadvocate of the Supretne’– a public interest
\nlitigation whichAV_accordi_n;;l5,’   couched in
\nunsavoury   intentihonallattempt to indulge
\nin mudslingingl Supreme Court and
\nalso ojfli\u00e9f At one place in the writ<\/p>\n
petition ; \u00ab the  b   lieged that-\n<\/p>\n
 “Thus the, working of the judges are cocktail
\n bbasedp on Western Common Laws and American
\n techniques, as such unproductive and outdated
\n _ a:ccorcl’ing”- to socioeconomic conditions of the
\n  \\ CC!ii1.i7U.f ‘ <\/p>\n
  -.  one another place, the petitioner has
\n..st’a_ted that.’-\n<\/p>\n
V ” “This Court has become a constitutional liability
\n without having control over the illegal acts of the
\nGovernment …….. .. Thus the people for whom the
\nConstitution is meant have now turned down
\ntheir faces against it which is a disillusionment
\nfor fear that justice is a will of the wisp.”<\/p>\n
Yet at another place the petitioner has stated that
\nthis Court is sleeping over the issues like<\/p>\n
Kumbhkarna’ ………. . . *7 ;\n<\/p>\n
w”’\u00b0”‘<\/p>\n
a\/” ‘<\/p>\n
W 59 ..\n<\/p>\n
The Supreme Court held that piirna facie the petition had<\/p>\n
been drawn up with a designed purpose of bringing the<\/p>\n
Court into contempt and also expressed its surprise<\/p>\n
advocate with a considerable experience had chosen to   *<\/p>\n
such an irresponsible manner and_.d.ire-cteclhtthe’ to <\/p>\n
draw up an appropriate contempt pjifoceeding~ <\/p>\n
Contempt of Courts Act. _  . V _   —\n<\/p>\n
59. At this stage it is pertine’i1t_”‘i:o men”tion”that}after the<\/p>\n
conclusion of the arguii1entst’tto_1i s..ihp\u00a7’i’-instantttt application<\/p>\n
Manjunath. J, mentioned  on receipt of<\/p>\n
the   J, met the Hon’ble<\/p>\n
Chief Justice and shpvved.ljlthecontents of the courier and at<\/p>\n
the said metetingtlx\/1’anj’vunath.J, categorically expressed that<\/p>\n
.—.,._he  not hear””‘the appeal and the matter be posted<\/p>\n
p_bet’oI”‘c_   Bench. But the Hon’ble Chief Justice<\/p>\n
stated thattthe said Bench oniy would have to hear the<\/p>\n
tx_pappeai~.  However, Manjunath. J. informed his Lordship<\/p>\n
A i~lf”CAhief.Justice that he was not inclined to hear the appeal on<\/p>\n
‘  merits but that the matter has to be investigated and hence<\/p>\n
it  matter was posted for that purpose and the order dated<\/p>\n
10.7.2009 was passed in that regard. Thereafter in view of<\/p>\n
the orders dated 7.8.2009, the matter was placed tgpfore the<\/p>\n
\u00a7
\n3:’
\n{E 1’_,.\/ )4″\n<\/p>\n
.,.w'”\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
-71..\n<\/p>\n
were present in court did not understand and realise the<\/p>\n
implication of the observations made by Manjunath..tJ”-..after \/g<\/p>\n
the conclusion of the arguments on both
\nnot inclined to hear the appeals’    ”\n<\/p>\n
opportunity, the applicant had to
\nunfortunately “wise counse1″5did  <\/p>\n
stage.\n<\/p>\n
61. After the concitlsion l’ofi’\u00bblith\u00e9p-luyafiatguments on the
\napplication, he had stopped
\nvisiting  he’  having a feeling
\nof devoti.-on,_Alconslitlerirrgjl’  the deities are quite
\ndifferent the: temples in South India and
\nthat this “‘*fact  and in particular it was<\/p>\n
suggested to lSri,lS.A.BlIaruti Prasad, Advocate, who was<\/p>\n
 court that this was the reason why he had<\/p>\n
 temple since the year 2003 and which<\/p>\n
was”‘-alsolkntiwn to him and the same was admitted by Sri.<\/p>\n
Vlpp.”it{[at’uti Frasad, Advocate in court on 10.7.2009. But the<\/p>\n
 . 0′ newspapers had reported as follows:<\/p>\n
“He said he used to visit the temple as a devotee until<\/p>\n
it 2003 and stopped thereafter due to several doubts, this<\/p>\n
should not happen to the innocent devotees visiting temples.”<\/p>\n
it<\/p>\n
,5’<\/p>\n
-72-<\/span><\/p>\n
Though the reason for not visiting the temples since 2003
\nwas clari\ufb01ed with Sri.i\\\/Iaruti Prasad, Advocate, even then the<\/p>\n
applicant and their counsel did not realise that–___ the<\/p>\n
newspaper reporting of the proceedings dated <\/p>\n
could not have been the basis of the applications’: <\/p>\n
62. As far as the role of the advocates of the\u00bb   <\/p>\n
this case is concerned, from the order <\/p>\n
apparent that Sri.S.K.V.Cha1apathi, iearfied  <\/p>\n
for the applicant submitted  and  had fuil
\ncon\ufb01dence in the and  “were not<\/p>\n
responsihie   the hoover with photographs.
\nSri.S.A.iVIaruthi*  for the applicant had<\/p>\n
admitted that g_Vpri.o,1–‘  2003, on three occasions on his<\/p>\n
  2\\\/AEanjtina’ti1;J, had visited the temple and he<\/p>\n
  that he alone was taking Judges to<\/p>\n
ISi(_C0N,.’Ba:1galore on festivai days. He also admitted that<\/p>\n
‘quwhat was; given as a gift was a photo of lord Krishna in a<\/p>\n
A e~:i’w:ooden frame in a presentation cover and no Valuable gift<\/p>\n
‘  had been given by ISKCON, Bangalore and that whenever<\/p>\n
 hiluudges had visited ISKCON, Bangalore, photographs had<\/p>\n
been taken and all the photographs were with ISKCON,<\/p>\n
Bangalore. Though on i0.’7.2009 learned Senior Counsel for<\/p>\n
35<\/span><\/p>\n
Z<\/p>\n
.9\/”7′;\u00a2<\/p>\n
m73m<\/p>\n
the applicant stated that the applicant had full confidence in
\nthe court and is recorded in the order dated 1037,2009,
\nnevertheless the instant application has been <\/p>\n
pursued.\n<\/p>\n
63. From the entire material on record what._.W_ev.pe:iiceive is”  <\/p>\n
a concerted effort made by <\/p>\n
their advocates to see thatpathe appeal is heard lb;\/’Vii<\/p>\n
Manjunath. J. Though we do say anythifigat stage
\nabout the persons involved  courier to the<\/p>\n
Judges hearing the appeal,~l.3lr’eetl lthle9Vfol.loWAifng_ l\ufb02acts have to be<\/p>\n
re-iterated: “When    the issue of the courier
\nreceivecibv the  ‘ii.ea;fi:ng the appeal, both the learned<\/p>\n
Senior _v Counsel .Sr’\ufb01i..iAJc_layal Holla for the appellants and<\/p>\n
 ”  ,S1’i;Sf’K.fJ;Cha1apathi*for the respondent No.1 submitted that<\/p>\n
 hald.confidence and faith in the Bench hearing the<\/p>\n
 the order dated 10.7.2009, it is also clear that<\/p>\n
l V _Sri.S.:1i.i\\i&aruti Prasad, Advocate instructing<\/p>\n
A \u00bb ll’ S~..K.V.Cha1apathi, Senior Counsei, for the<\/p>\n
 appiicant\/respondent No.1, categorically admitted that it<\/p>\n
 at his instance, Manjunath. J, had visited ISKCON<\/p>\n
Bangalore and that a picture of Lord Krishna was presented<\/p>\n
to him sometime in the year 2003 had at that time, the<\/p>\n
m.’7.z_}_<\/p>\n
photographs had been taken. Since the courier had been
\nsent in the name of the appellant, both parties were directed
\nto \ufb01le affidavits and give explanation and the matter was<\/p>\n
adjourned to 31.7.2009 and later to 7.8.2009. <\/p>\n
interregnum, Manjunath J , received two letters <\/p>\n
Sri.S.Shekar Shetty, Advocate and   l <\/p>\n
Advocate. In order to avoid any unplealsantrieiss,V._tiieseltwo}<\/p>\n
letters were shown to Sri.S.K._V.Chal.ap*athi an.dSri.U’da”yaVWp<\/p>\n
Holla, Senior Counsel on bothllsides andas   request
\nmade by S1i.S.K.V.C1ialapat.hil ‘ Couvnselv not to<\/p>\n
disclose the contents of thei.’Ietter:,l the..irrart:er’_.was adjourned<\/p>\n
from  H31i.7i;2io_o9 73. :ff_’v7.s.2oo9. On 7.8.2009
\nSri.S.K.l’\/2Chalapathijg’ “Counsel in the presence of<\/p>\n
Sri.R8TI,1esh  .andA’:31’if:Maruti Prasad, Advocates. denied<\/p>\n
‘JV’\u00ab..\/the-iclontentsx of tl’1e””Ietters. Hence Sri.Ramesh Babu and<\/p>\n
  ‘*9’ra\u00e9ad,”–.. Advocates were directed to \ufb01le their<\/p>\n
affidavits,  till the hearing of this application, the said<\/p>\n
‘x_paffidavits”;.had not been filed. instead, a memo was \ufb01led<\/p>\n
A  a direction to the Registry to furnish a copy of the<\/p>\n
l  letter written by the two advocates to file an ailidavit.<\/p>\n
‘4 Therefore, the said two advocates have intentionally avoided<\/p>\n
\ufb01ling their affidavits. There are no reasons for Sri.Shekar<\/p>\n
Shetiy and Sri.S.V.Srinivasan, Advocates who have \ufb01ut in<\/p>\n
5\/!’<\/p>\n
#’<\/p>\n
_ 75 IIIIAAA
\npractice of about \ufb01fty years and forty years as advocates<\/p>\n
respectively to address such letters. These are the on!-y__ two<\/p>\n
advocates who are disabled to appear in the ef<\/p>\n
Manjunatlid. There is no contra material placedvsolasl  V’<\/p>\n
dis-believe the contents of these tWo~>le.ttersT:’ it
\nhaving stated that respondent No.21 had”<\/p>\n
the court, nevertheless has an applicatio\ufb01’..\u00a7n:..3;8.2’OO9. ” V<\/p>\n
But from the order dated  and  “the ahsence of
\naffidavits of Sri.Ramesh= xBabt1 an-:1 it “E’:ri_.:pSd;A._l\\\/laruti Prasad.
\nAdvocates, we prima facie.   applicant and<\/p>\n
counsel for they ap\u00a3pili_can’t\u00ab have leftfno stone unturned so as<\/p>\n
to avoid  Manjunath. J. ilhe \ufb01ling
\nof the appli’cation.’ls:V’ proverbial last straw on the<\/p>\n
camel’s_ baci: aticl “final attempt made by the<\/p>\n
“ll’vapp-iicant\/respondent””No.1 to somehow ensure that the<\/p>\n
   heard by Manjunath. J. Further the lengthy<\/p>\n
argumentslrnade on the application by the learned Senior<\/p>\n
“._ppCounselV”iTor the applicant and no attempt being made to
\nA fwithldifaw the said application, even after Manjunath. J,
\nl  clarifying in the open court that he had already mentioned to<\/p>\n
it the I-Ion’b1e Chief Justice that in View of the receipt of the<\/p>\n
courier and its contents, he was not inclined to hear the<\/p>\n
appeal, is nothing but a concerted effort made by the<\/p>\n
_’]6,.,<\/p>\n
applicant\/respondent No.1 and the learned counsel to<\/p>\n
ensure that the case is not heard by Manjuanth. <\/p>\n
View this is nothing but an aspect of “bench  _<\/p>\n
adopted by the applicant so as to avoid Manjunafih.    <\/p>\n
hearing the appeal which is nothing buitnfjoruayni 4s_hoppin_gT”‘ <\/p>\n
ingenuity earlier adopted by the applicant\/respioindgeznt  <\/p>\n
before the Mumbai High Court’;’..:_V’l’lf_  learned
\nSenior Counsel  appearing for
\nrespondent No.1   clients i.e.,
\nrespondent NQ:1    court hearing the
\nappeal, We how the controversy
\nsurrounding  the Judges hearing the
\nappeal,  “ll0′.7.2009 and the newspaper<\/p>\n
reporting in0aitsv_Vovm’.’–wa’y  proceedings of 10.7 .2009, could<\/p>\n
 \u00ab..havver\u00b016:_dVA to the”applicant\/respondent No.1 having a<\/p>\n
 p_suspicio11_:’tthatV TD\/lanjunath. J, was biased against the<\/p>\n
applicant; . Q   <\/p>\n
  p_ it  well settled that any interference with the Judge<\/p>\n
 . ‘in_dthe’\u00ab discharge of his duties or in relation to his judicial<\/p>\n
  ..fL:r1ctioniI1g amounts to contempt. In fact. interference with<\/p>\n
V the administration of justice can take different forms. The<\/p>\n
importance of non–interference in judges’ discharge of duties<\/p>\n
is expressly stated in Article 211 of Constitution of India. It<\/p>\n
W77-\n<\/p>\n
states that no discussion can take place in the legislature of<\/p>\n
a State with respect to the conduct of any Judge the<\/p>\n
Supreme Court or of a High Court in the discharge\u00bb:oflfhhist.<\/p>\n
duties. In the context of litigants and lawyers’pa’t–ternp’tinr1g to  b <\/p>\n
get a case released from a judge, tvheHSupre’;ne-I <\/p>\n
case of Chetak Construction Lin1it_ed,._ referprejdj to’ <\/p>\n
deprecated such a practice as’v\u00bbit”would”*aIno1int7to forum
\nshopping. This in pour cco”nsid.e’red-.._view “aniounts to
\ninterference with the administration of<\/p>\n
65. It is “said1″ti’ia_tV a.m__oIigst’l_ the _rarious types of mis-<\/p>\n
conduct byHat’eo~i_1nsVe:.lV,’ there is none more reprehensible than
\nsuch conduct as_tenVds”todA”impede, obstruct or prevent the<\/p>\n
administration of the lawllor to destroy the confidence of the<\/p>\n
 people  such administration. In D.C.Saxena’s case,<\/p>\n
  the Supreme Court while acknowledging<\/p>\n
the right of an advocate to freedom of<\/p>\n
‘g_expression in arguing a case before the court, however,<\/p>\n
A feInpih–asized the countervailing duties of the advocate to the<\/p>\n
‘  court as well as to the opposite party. Irresponsible and<\/p>\n
it reckless allegations against a Judge or the judiciary cannot<\/p>\n
be condoned on the ground of his obligation to state<\/p>\n
2’?\n<\/p>\n
E”\n<\/p>\n
M  __
\nwhatever he is instructed to state by his client or on account<\/p>\n
of free\u00e9om of expression.\n<\/p>\n
66. In Radha Mohan Lal’s case, referred <\/p>\n
Supreme Court held that liberty of free  be  l <\/p>\n
equated with a licence to make unf:ounc_iedg a;-n.d’1irrespor_p1silglei’<\/p>\n
allegations against the judiciary.  aclvocate–“.l.’Ail1’o\u00ab’ rn\u00b0al.\u00bbr”‘:.\n<\/p>\n
M79-\n<\/p>\n
are not shopping centers. The administration of justice, i)’ it is<\/p>\n
to command respect and confidence, must be kept parent all<\/p>\n
costs.” Any advocate making any false aliegations<\/p>\n
judicial officers or judges is prima facie guilty’  V’<\/p>\n
conduct.   ..\n<\/p>\n
67. In the case of M.B.Sangi, refe”rred_A_Ato(Vsu’pra’, <\/p>\n
that veiled threats, abrasive ‘behaviour; use_of.jdisr’e’spectful ” l<\/p>\n
language and at times blatantucondemnatorygattacks are
\noften designedly employedltwith taming a judge into<\/p>\n
submission to secure a:de’sir:ed order. The ‘foundation of our<\/p>\n
systemtyvhichea shine independence and impartiality
\nof those. vlvhol 1na’n’f:.t’l”u\u00a7\u00a71’i~.\u00e9ye shaken if disparaging and<\/p>\n
derogatory rem_ark;S.’–ar”e made against the Presiding Judicial<\/p>\n
” ‘~   Aimpunity; ‘V<\/p>\n
 contents of the af\ufb01daxdts \ufb01led by and on<\/p>\n
lV._tbeh.alf..of\u00abapplicant\/respondent No.1 it is evident that first<\/p>\n
it ‘f_*resVp’o.ndent had invited Manjunath. J, to the temple and<\/p>\n
‘  alfterlthe pooja as per custom he was presented with a photo<\/p>\n
a Wframe of the temple deity and prasadam. The photographs<\/p>\n
were taken on such occasions and the same has been sent in<\/p>\n
the name of the appellant by courier. While referring to the<\/p>\n
,5?\n<\/p>\n
K<\/p>\n
W80″,<\/p>\n
newspaper reporting of the court proceedings ___dated<\/p>\n
10.7.2009, it is stated in the af\ufb01dawt <\/p>\n
applicants\/respondent No.1 that if  ~<\/p>\n
“attributed to have been rriade\ufb02by Hori’bie:’jMf’.Ju.stiee0″‘<\/p>\n
K.L.Mary’unath”,  correct” den1onstra’teS–r’ pi*ejudice”‘afg.aifi:s_t<\/p>\n
the first respondent. Therefore, the’-applicant’ <\/p>\n
sure if the statement report’ed.x_in.VV’\u00bb lvizould be
\nattributed to Manj ,  ~.._so”x’Ihether they were
\ncorrect. In factgthe tihaitanya Das was
\npersonally    his counsel,
\nSri.S.A.i\\\/Iariutj   “‘\u00a3ii’i.uVS3v.K.’0J.Chalapathi, Senior
\nCounstii _th’eWp’roceedings on 10.7.2009
\nand exvitpretssed  in the Bench hearing the<\/p>\n
matter. Despite this thetapplication has been filed, While at<\/p>\n
 .,..th\u20ac’-‘:_.:i:Sa1′{Il:\u20ac ‘timed dcoiitending that on 10.7.2009 when<\/p>\n
. ”–.raised the issue of the courier with<\/p>\n
photograp.hs’;__-i\u00a7ri.S.K.V.Cha1apathi, Senior Counsel instantly<\/p>\n
btureacted vthat the court should ignore the said courier and<\/p>\n
0′ ‘i\ufb01photographs and proceed with further hearing of the appeal,<\/p>\n
‘   clearly indicated full confidence, trust and faith of the<\/p>\n
04*,”applicant\/respondent No.1 in the court. If that was the<\/p>\n
instant reaction on the part of the counsel for the<\/p>\n
applicant\/respondent No.1 on 10.7.2009, we fail to<\/p>\n
egg”-\n<\/p>\n
understand as to how the said counsel could have \ufb01led the<\/p>\n
application attributing bias against Manjunath. tI,”=on.._tthe<\/p>\n
basis of the newspaper reports of 11.7.2009.   _<\/p>\n
the deponent “the apprehension of Jt\u00bbhe>_respohde.nt:  that .0″<\/p>\n
the Hon’ble Mr.Justice K.L.Manjut:.ath::”‘:’3:’<\/p>\n
prejudice against the respondent\u00ab._No.1t”h!_Ls started }onl_t;Hor’i the  *<\/p>\n
reading of the newspaper on 1  0′  stating so,
\nit was also stated that  ‘had expressed full
\ncon\ufb01dence in thecourt   their counsel.
\nIf the counsel  ‘expressed con\ufb01dence
\nin the   eve fail to understand
\nas to   have drafted and \ufb01led
\nan  J, should recuse himself from<\/p>\n
hearin the a” neat, While the de onent claims innocence and
\n.’ V’ <\/p>\n
 on the xhasi’s”of the statement made by the Senior<\/p>\n
  if.-spondent No.1 on 10.7.2009 to ignore the<\/p>\n
1et’ter’tand.photographs and to proceed to hear the matter.<\/p>\n
‘,.NeVerthexle_ss the application has been \ufb01led alleging bias on<\/p>\n
it  of the Manjunath. J.\n<\/p>\n
  _69\u00a7. Under the circumstances we are of the considered<\/p>\n
 View that this is a \ufb01t case where suo rnotu contempt action<\/p>\n
has to be initiated against Sr1.Jai Chaitanya Dasa @<\/p>\n
Jainarayan K, S\/o Mr.K.C.D.NaInbisan, Aged 42 years,<\/p>\n
M82-\n<\/p>\n
Secretary of respondent No.1, Madhu Pandit Das, President<\/p>\n
of respondent No.1, Sri.S.K.\\\u00e9:Chalapthi, Senior<\/p>\n
Sri.V.H.Ron (Lex Pluxus], Sri.Rarnesh  ~<\/p>\n
Sri.S.A.I\\\/iaruti Prasad. Advocates.<\/p>\n
70. Office is directed to register the cognternptgiproceedings <\/p>\n
in this regard and place the matter. beforetiiet  Chief it<\/p>\n
Justice for posting.\n<\/p>\n
71. As far as the  J, on
\n7.8.2009 is ;:–_Wgt_are  that it was the
\nopinion of   \u00ab;i\u20ac7’a.g’V’%aVV.\u00a2;LaS\u20ac of a Judge being
\ndefamedandl’   administration of justice.
\nHowever’.*\u00abvve–  that the entire controversy<\/p>\n
is one _V affeactingi.theA’*.adn1inistration of justice and the<\/p>\n
 V’ ~.allega’tio_ns are prirnaiacie contemptuous within the meaning<\/p>\n
  the Contempt of Courts Act 1971. The<\/p>\n
 the applicant and also the affidavits of the<\/p>\n
‘V._applicant;’;respondent No.1 are prima facie conturnacious.<\/p>\n
A  Senior Counsel for the applicant when speci\ufb01cally<\/p>\n
‘  asked about the basis for the application, he submitted that<\/p>\n
is not only the order dated 10.7.2009, the newspaper<\/p>\n
reports dated 11.7.2009, the affidavits \ufb01led in this case as<\/p>\n
well as on the instructions of the counsel that he is raising<\/p>\n
s83″\n<\/p>\n
the plea of bias. Scandalising the Judges or courts tends to<\/p>\n
bring the authority and administration of law into <\/p>\n
and disregard and tantamounts to contempt.  .<\/p>\n
bring the court into disrepute or diSI’\u20acSp\u20acCt*0I’=’Ei\\%hiCh::OffC11d ‘*<\/p>\n
its dignity or its majesty or challenge <\/p>\n
contempt committed in respect_ of singie J11d’ige~  single <\/p>\n
court or in certain circumstances’ =e_om_mitte’d in respect of the<\/p>\n
whoie of the judiciary ohjudicial “‘syste’mt. Hence, we are<\/p>\n
‘ constrained to issue the above  dismissing the<\/p>\n
aplllication unriei'”F?\u00a7I1sid_er\u00a3ition.7   = <\/p>\n
72.  case, it would be apposite to
\nrefer tovxa ‘dec1s~1on”i:of_ \u00bbi’the”‘~Supreme Court in the case of<\/p>\n
T.Arqvindarid\u00a2j;tn_Vs.A’*T;VQSatyanal & another reported<\/p>\n
 *    SCA\u00a742\u00ab1–\u00abWh1ch arose from this court. Though<\/p>\n
 thein the context of Order VII Rule 11 of CPC,<\/p>\n
whatis reievvanivwfor the purpose of this case is the fact that<\/p>\n
‘V the c5u.n’s4;1’\u00a3\u00a2r the petitioner who appeared before this court<\/p>\n
 ‘ifhadii—subvmitted that Venkataramiah J, (as he then was)<\/p>\n
—  should not hear the matter on the pretext that the petitioner<\/p>\n
 had mentioned the name of the said Judge in the affidavit<\/p>\n
it while describing the prior proceedings. The Supreme Court<\/p>\n
noted that the unhappy Judge adjourned the case to the<\/p>\n
,4\/”,.\n<\/p>\n
W84-\n<\/p>\n
next day and after spending a sleepless night the Judge<\/p>\n
heard the arguments without yielding to the bullyingptapctics<\/p>\n
of the petitioner and impropriety of his advocate”land”–wen_t” .<\/p>\n
into the merits and dismissed the revision””pet\ufb01tion, *_’Ih_e *<\/p>\n
Supreme Court noted as follows in the    h<\/p>\n
”We regret the injlicttion ofthe ordealjgupvon
\nthe learned Judge of the’-Hi\u00a7f.h Court l3’y_a’,calloils
\nparty. We more than regretthe _circums_tance that
\nthe party concerned has pbeent to prevail upon
\none lawyer or theother.’ to “to the court a
\ncase which was disingenuous or’*a\u00e9arse.f’<\/p>\n
73. The said”learried gdudgelof as a Judge of the
\nApex Court   .l\u00ab3.uI-“{.Gupta 82. Others Vs.
\nPresiderttllof4an.d'{5thersl:reported in AIR 1982 SC<\/p>\n
149 after  sloka, observed as follows:<\/p>\n
_ _   trained in ethics or morality,
\n or pr”ais.e.;_.let lakshmi (wealth) accumulate<\/p>\n
. V ” or i\u00e9ariish as she likes; let death come today itself
\n  or_at”the end of a yuga lmilleniumj, men with
\n discre’t\u00e9on_.v~will not deflect from the path of<\/p>\n
 ‘rectiEiJgde’.1=”\n<\/p>\n
 74. it ..   country has always had great Judges and will<\/p>\n
A feontinue to have men and women of learning and high<\/p>\n
—  reputation, as Judges. This court Cannot simply dismiss the<\/p>\n
 application on merits and ignore the unsavory controversy<\/p>\n
that has been generated in this appeal, culminating in the<\/p>\n
filing of the application and the lengthy argpments<\/p>\n
K.\n<\/p>\n
\/”#3<\/p>\n
..o<\/p>\n
_.85h<\/p>\n
addressed for allowing the said application. Hence, we have
\nbeen constrained to issue the aforesaid diT\u20acCtlQv1’J,,’:”‘1?\\:fKli.ll\u20ac<\/p>\n
dismissing the application.\n<\/p>\n
75. In View of this order andvgbeinggg.3conscious’ <\/p>\n
limitations we direct the Regi._stI’y V”t\u00ab:)_ ddpost  <\/p>\n
proceeding as well as this apbuealtbbegforeld ‘a .j\u00a7e1ich”f.of which
\nManjunath J, and Nag_a1<.ath.i1a.\u00a7. ~ar.e"'not members, after<\/p>\n
obtaining necessary ordersvgfrorrhzd Chief Justice.<\/p>\n
76. The  presented to
\nManjunath   yfeiar 2003 as well as the
\ncourier;  ‘d (if Srishekhar Shetty &
\n to Manjunath J, are placed<\/p>\n
on recovrd. as the same are handed over by him and would be<\/p>\n
 therecord and the same shall be in safe custody.<\/p>\n
Sd\/–\n<\/p>\n
JUDGE<\/p>\n
Sd\/–\n<\/p>\n
JUDGE<\/p>\n
KVN*<\/p>\n
–w’-w L.~<\/p>\n
{rat I<\/p>\n
_$g,
\n\u00a31.:s.__.f?_e.__J.a_4_r;=:_7_r
\nMisc. Petition filed by R~1 requesting ne,not to<\/p>\n
hear this appeal was heard by me and ye? fSister<\/p>\n
Nagarathna J. on 18.8.2009 and prior to that eapt\u00e9:_gag<\/p>\n
listed before other companion ;gage;;f.:<rp\u00e9g\u00a2fore.&f<\/p>\n
certain events which were\ufb02 taken placed prior wto
\n18.8.2009 are required toPEbe' hronght Eon record
\nconsidering the backgronnd of this case.0<\/p>\n
This matter was heard hyyneValonc with my Brother
\nKumaraswamy J. on 2L7.8000;:"\u00a7herea8ter the matter was
\nadjourned \u00a3or5r\ufb01\u00a7e\u00a3a\u00a3.\u00a7\u00a3g\u00a7\u00a7\u00a7e\u00a3\u00a7?'l After the case was
\nadjourned Jon i2;j,8009f_aH cgeiiar was received. by" my
\nPrivate SeC\u00a5%t\u00e9rYe \u00a7hd*ra "similar courier was also
\nreceived by my Brother \ufb02nearaswamy J.. The contents of
\nthe conrier is extracted by us in our order in detail.<\/p>\n
Immediatei\ufb01 \ufb01fter the receipt of the courier, on the<\/p>\n
Ifnext day itself myself and my Brother Kumaraswamy J.<\/p>\n
"net His Lordship Chief Justice and showed the contents<\/p>\n
0} of= the, courier received by us and I personally<\/p>\n
requested His Lordship Chief Justice to post the matter<\/p>\n
lahefore any other Bench in view of the false allegations<\/p>\n
3\/<\/p>\n
81<\/span><\/p>\n
made against me. However, His” Lordship Chief Justice
\nreposing confidence in me said that the matt;er_’ii~has to<\/p>\n
be heard by us. Even thereafter I madefai”request,to<\/p>\n
His Lordship to post the matter _p];A>Aefore_5’any:’_’0ti3.e’rV Ben’chi”.:.p<\/p>\n
However, I sought permission to’a,hea’r..’ithe._rnattier—._oi\u00a7.iy \ufb01e. ”<\/p>\n
find out the persons who “dare Iiaehiindp  –.the
\ncourier to avoid my Bench  reputation
\nto me and I also infoineg\u00e9q Chief Justice
\nthat the records’A’wou1d””ito him to place<\/p>\n
before any otpherpp  _a*f_te.r  out the persons<\/p>\n
who are   courier.\n<\/p>\n
In thve*J=”to me and to my Brother
\nKumaraswemyp    iivstated that contents of the
\nalso heeinwiisent to I-lon’ble Chief Justice of<\/p>\n
India   Viigioimpanion Judges, Hon’ble Chief Justice<\/p>\n
 Karnataka  to the fourth estate.\n<\/p>\n
 wees? revealed to us by His Lordship Chief<\/p>\n
that such a cover has not been sent to him.<\/p>\n
i’hare_after the matter was listed before the court on<\/p>\n
VTLV-(A16-..\u00ab~i7.2009 only to find out the persons who have<\/p>\n
\/’-\n<\/p>\n
‘W<\/p>\n
’88\u00bb<\/p>\n
indulged in sending such a courier to bring afbad name
\nto me. On 10.7.2009 when Mr.Udaya  his<\/p>\n
arguments I stopped him for a. while and<\/p>\n
the receipt of the courier. Beforethe  the<\/p>\n
cover could be made known  cotxnlsel 00
\nparties Sri.S.K.V.Cha1apath\u00a7’;:.V:VV:.”\u00bbleavrnei?1″jseiniuor 00 counsel
\naP?earj-1’19 5\u00b017 the re5’P:’7.3’9_deIi\u00a3”‘V_ exirven\ufb02vvvknowing the
\ncontents of the Vcover\ufb02 that I
\nshould ignore  and that his
\nclient has   the courtfwhich only
\ninCi5\u00bbCate\u00a7”:,:il-iliiliiiaiii\u00e9’-ii  Mr.Cha1apathi what was
\n‘in the coxrui\u00e9s.-\u00abrip. 0 said that his clients are
\nno way responsibvlehvand  have not indulged and that
\n confidence in the court. Though<\/p>\n
the'” to have been sent to the I-ion’ble<\/p>\n
:v_:”‘Chief AJust_icegj’..–and companion Judges and the Press, I<\/p>\n
 that such covers are not sent to any one of<\/p>\n
,e*xc_e’pt to me and to my Brother Kumaraswamy J. . If<\/p>\n
 such courier had been sent to the press, then<\/p>\n
 press would have published the same considering the<\/p>\n
63\/<\/p>\n
Q9<\/p>\n
background of this case atleast after l0,7.2099.
\nMatter was adjourned to 17.7.2009 directing both the<\/p>\n
parties to file affidavits. On 17f?n2QU\u00a7’hsenior<\/p>\n
counsel Mr.Mathai M.Paikeday who appeared for \u00a7–I fo;W<\/p>\n
the first time in the case opened his argueents with an<\/p>\n
opening sentence that I should ire\u00a2us\u00e9V\u00b0s\u00a7\u00a7\u00a71f from
\nhearing the appeal by producind the recent \ufb01udgment of
\nthe Supreme Court where His bordshig Justice Markandey
\nKat3’u in 2.9.  iv No.5939\/2009 had
\nrecused. himseir; tron: \u00a7\u00a7\u00a7\u00a3;@\u00a7i7;h\u00e9 matter and at his
\nrequest matter*sas adjourned to 31.7.2009.<\/p>\n
In the nean \ufb01hiief two letters were received by me
\none by Srirsg\u00e9hekharshetty, Advocate and another from
\ns\u00a7i;\u00e9<V\u00a7\u00a7ri\ufb01i\u00ab5$a\u00a7f" iiiii "iThese two advocates alone are<\/p>\n
disabied to gpgaaz before me. It is mentioned in the<\/p>\n
 h~Mri',i'.Si;S.Shekhar Shetty that Mr.Ramesh Babu<\/p>\n
" colleague .of Sri.S.K.V.Chalapathy had approached. him<\/p>\n
V_*\u00a2a;iie: requesting him to file power for Rul and that<\/p>\n
isuch_a request was further made by him even after the<\/p>\n
in parties were directed to file affidavit. Similarly, in<\/p>\n
<%\/<\/p>\n
556<\/span><\/p>\n
the letter of Sri.S.V.Srinivasan it is mentioned that
\nSri.Maruti Prasad had approached him to filey\u00a7akalat on<\/p>\n
behalf of R-1 on an earlier occasion\ufb01l ffeftere the<\/p>\n
receipt of these two letters, to put an end to all the”<\/p>\n
unpleasantness, contents of the letters were sheen to<\/p>\n
Sri.S.K.V.Chalapathy and Mr.Udaya \ufb01e1;a,X1eee\ufb01ee senior
\ncounsel for both the ,\u00a7artiesE em_After””reading the
\ncontents of the lettersg Mrtdhalaoathy requested me not
\nto note down  letters in the
\norder-sheet and son\ufb01ht tine he ene week. Then also it
\nwas infor\ufb01edttbrr eel thet\ufb02 matter would be closed if
\nreally an attemnt is \ufb01ade to avoid my Bench provided an
\nunconditional la\u00a7olog\u00a7- is tendered by the learned
\nconnsel:ehose’nemes are referred to in the letters of<\/p>\n
Sri:$:Shekher’\u00a7hetty and Sri.S.V.Srinivasan. When the<\/p>\n
lJcontents_o\u00a3~the letters were revealed to the learned<\/p>\n
‘*sounsel, Both Mr.Ramesh Babu and Mr.Maruthi Prasad were<\/p>\n
*,jp:eeent_in the Court Hall. Accordingly, the matter was<\/p>\n
‘edjeureed to 7.8.2009.\n<\/p>\n
<3<\/p>\n
83<\/span><\/p>\n
On 7.8.2009 Mr. S.K.V.Chalapaqthy submitted that
\nMr.Ramesh Babu and Mr.Maruthi Prasad had notvV.Vap;i5;:oached<\/p>\n
Mr . Shekhar Shetty and Mr . S .V. Srinivasan\u00bb  .<\/p>\n
In the circumstances, a direction–“V”wa-sv, “is”sVued'”%t”oL<\/p>\n
Mr.Ramesh Babu and Mr.Maruthi7_Prasr-1d’\u00bb._t~o”‘  ”<\/p>\n
affidavits and court also  Ara-grvcchialvapathy
\nmay receive copies of__   the open
\ncourt to enable Mr.Maruthi, Mr.Ramesh Babu to
\nfile their affid’ayitg;;” informed the<\/p>\n
court that =co_ilec1;;  :copies of the letters<\/p>\n
later.  was present and not
\nMr.Maruthi .J2r\u00a7s\u00e9df;T g\u00e9\u00a7ording1y, the matter was
\nadjourne<_:1._.tLo ,_:V8;e2.00A9..V\ufb01VAfter the dictation was over,
\n J. sitting as a Companion Judge
\nhash' order which reads as hereunder:<\/p>\n
"I~Ieard\u00bb~t_h'feA dictation of my brother His Lordship<\/p>\n
V Sri;K."I5.Manjunath. If a Judge is defamed in such
\n.__"~a wa'y___"as not to affect the administration of
\nV.  ., j'u's–t_ice he has the ordinary remedies for
\n~jddefamation. It is of fundamental importance that
\n  Justice should not only be done, but should<\/p>\n
 .r__m\u00a7-anifestly and undoubtedly be seen t-o be done.<\/p>\n
V Therefore, in this background, post this matter<\/p>\n
V before a Bench of which Justice C.R.Kumaraswamy is<\/p>\n
6*"\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
32.<\/p>\n
not a Member after obtaining necessary orders from
\nthe Hon’ble Chief Justice. Qig<\/p>\n
In the circumstances, place this matter before
\nthe Hon’ble Chief Justice for necessary orders;”<\/p>\n
It is unfortunate that a companion Judge who was weii<\/p>\n
aware of the fact that we were hearingrthe”partie;ioniyAf<\/p>\n
to find out the persons .responsihle .g5r \u00a7\u00a79\u00a71\ufb01g- the
\ncourier to avoid the Bench has pass\u00a7@ an order as if
\nparties had defamed a dudge and that he should resort
\nto an ordinary civil  ‘interest of the<\/p>\n
judiciary I feei it’may\u00a7n0t he=prop\u00e9r for me to coment<\/p>\n
about the iiii   my companion Judge.\n<\/p>\n
Accordingl\u00a7;Jthe’natter*was”adjourned to 11.8.2009.<\/p>\n
On i1.8.2008 at the request of the counsel for Rel
\nmatter was ad\ufb01ourned to 18.8.2009. In the mean while,<\/p>\n
in tiew of the orders passed by my Brother Kumaraswamy<\/p>\n
:c0J; matter was posted before the Chief Justice and His<\/p>\n
‘*iordship again directed the matter to be heard by the<\/p>\n
0; Bench headed by \ufb01e.\n<\/p>\n
0″-_Ihough there was ample opportunity for Mr.Ramesh<\/p>\n
“[3ab\ufb01 and Mr.Maruthi Prasad to collect the copies of the<\/p>\n
3%<\/p>\n
925<\/span><\/p>\n
letters in the open court and when the same was offered
\nby the court in the open court without collecting the<\/p>\n
same at the time of hearing the applicetion filed by<\/p>\n
R-1, they filed a memo stating” thaty they” may be”<\/p>\n
furnished copies of the letters , There are no reasons<\/p>\n
for the two Senior Members of the bar Mrfshehhar Shetty
\nand Mr.S.V.Srinivasan to addre\u00e9e letters to me about
\nMr.Ramesh Babu approachi\ufb01q\ufb01gmrg\ufb01hehhar Shetty and
\nMr.Maruthi Prasad; igan\ufb01roachinghi’dMr.S.V.Srinivesan
\nrequesting thien: -for R-1. At the time
\nof hearinshHMrtQathai,\ufb02]learned “senior counsel made a
\nsubmission in the open genre that he is argueing the
\nmatter in yregard-tto- the bias against me on the
\ninstructions “Qt the iiii “$enior’ Counsel Mr.Chalapathy and<\/p>\n
Mrt\u00a7on_\ufb01hc \ufb01g en advocate on record. Though they were<\/p>\n
lg present in the court hall when such a submission was<\/p>\n
‘t@ade~by Mrt\ufb01athai, they did not deny the same. From<\/p>\n
5 ithe conduct of the counsel for the parties and in view<\/p>\n
lof-_the letters _written by Mr.Shekhar Shetty and<\/p>\n
:7 My S.V.Srinivasan, I am of the prima facie view that a<\/p>\n
G3\/<\/p>\n
91+<\/p>\n
concerted effort has been made to avoid my Bench even
\nprior to the commencement of the argucents. and<\/p>\n
subsequently.\n<\/p>\n
Since Mr.Mathai learned. senior\ufb02 counsel Vappearing”<\/p>\n
for R-1 mainly contends’ that this eclientsi have<\/p>\n
entertained.a1 doubt after reading news itens appeared
\n_ _ Gf E
\nVisiting ISCKON<\/p>\n
on 11.7.2009 in regard~.__to
\nTemple, why I stopped yisitinc;If\u00a7hQN temple from 2003
\nonwards was also not ciarifiedcwlthlMr.Maruthi Prasad
\nwho was present in the esux\ufb01fngii and I nmde it very
\nclear thathl \ufb01tnyped visiting lfCKON temple since I was
\nnot gettinc devotion considering the appearance of the
\nstatue of, the _deity Wand not for any other reason,
\n  allecjeid against me on account of the<\/p>\n
paper repcrtinc was clarified and it was also open for<\/p>\n
h,lR\u00ab1 and its connsel to withdraw the application atleast<\/p>\n
\ufb02’,-v-”\n<\/p>\n
(‘iv-‘<\/p>\n
‘2 V . a an
\n‘ after hearing the clarification ween Mr.Maruthi Prasad<\/p>\n
\u00bb..~9″\\<\/p>\n
lpfwho gis_ also assisting Rwl, reasons for “stopping<\/p>\n
‘yiaiting ISCKON temple.\n<\/p>\n
6,,<\/p>\n
‘ sleepless snight yesterday”.\n<\/p>\n
‘day, for me it is for several weeks.\n<\/p>\n
365<\/span><\/p>\n
After the arguments were concluded. by’gMr.Mathai
\nand Mr.Holla in the open court, I disclosed that even<\/p>\n
before the matter is placed before pthe@n\u00e9ourt_ on<\/p>\n
10.7.2009 I had brought to the notice of \ufb01ist\ufb01ordship\ufb02<\/p>\n
Chief Justice requesting him to post the matter before
\nany other Bench and further made knee? to the counsel
\nfor the parties that: I gag “hearing lalong with my
\nBrother Kumaraswamy J. only pg fin@f\u00a2#\ufb01 the persons who
\nare indulged in ‘sending i\ufb01hednphote ito blackmail me.
\nEven then also L\ufb01r:S;K}\u00a7?Chalapathi and Mr.Ron or
\nMr.Maruthi \u00e9ragaa gr nhihamesh\ufb02sabu or Mr.Mathai did
\nnot venture=tonithdra\ufb01 the application filed by Rwl to
\nrecuse from hearing the appeal.\n<\/p>\n
Yd. z\u00a7 Q ARivAnDnr\ufb01AM Vs. T.V.SATYAPAL (AIR 1977 s.c –<\/p>\n
242i}Vxthe:pAper2_Court have referred. to the agony of<\/p>\n
:edMr.Justice Venkataramayya (as he then was): “I spent a<\/p>\n
In the said case,<\/p>\n
I {~. 2% *, as
\nKr*Venkataramayya J. has spent sleepless night for eke<\/p>\n
What has happened<\/p>\n
1” to me in the present case shall not happen to any other<\/p>\n
\u20ac\u00a7\/<\/p>\n
m’<\/p>\n
SE<\/p>\n
Judge. It is the duty and obligation of tIi,ee counse1
\nfor the parties to uphold the dignityg o\ufb01i this
\ninstitution and to avoid scandalizing the q\ufb01\ufb01ges fog no
\nfault of a Judge. W’ t V L<\/p>\n
In this background I am of the View tnet e ein\u00e9ere
\nattempt is made only tarnisnR\u00a7\u00a7’ima\u00a7eleno nepntation to
\nachieve their ends. N’ R K Vt x<\/p>\n
‘{ktf,R\/lS6\u00a7G9<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court International Society For … vs International Society For … on 15 September, 2009 Author: K.L.Manjunath & B.V.Nagarathna BETWEEN: 1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BAN DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF sEP’rEMBER_,H:;?’o(\u00a79″rI’*5 V’ “~ V. PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.._JUsTIcE-K;’L;1~e.4tA1\u20ac1,JuNAm AND _ TI-IE HON’BLE MRS.JUST_ICE\u00bbB.VINAGARA’I’HVNA’ MISC.CVL.NO. 140.57\/2009 –RFA,No.\u00a742~1–.\/2609 INTERNA’I’iON1″‘L.-SOC.IE’.\u20acY”FOR_V ~ KRISHNA_.CONS\u00a3CI’OUS1\\I_ESS, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-187491","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nInternational Society For ... vs International Society For ... on 15 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/international-society-for-vs-international-society-for-on-15-september-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"International Society For ... vs International Society For ... on 15 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/international-society-for-vs-international-society-for-on-15-september-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-09-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-05-08T03:56:49+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"90 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/international-society-for-vs-international-society-for-on-15-september-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/international-society-for-vs-international-society-for-on-15-september-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"International Society For … vs International Society For … on 15 September, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-08T03:56:49+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/international-society-for-vs-international-society-for-on-15-september-2009\"},\"wordCount\":17776,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Karnataka High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/international-society-for-vs-international-society-for-on-15-september-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/international-society-for-vs-international-society-for-on-15-september-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/international-society-for-vs-international-society-for-on-15-september-2009\",\"name\":\"International Society For ... vs International Society For ... on 15 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-08T03:56:49+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/international-society-for-vs-international-society-for-on-15-september-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/international-society-for-vs-international-society-for-on-15-september-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/international-society-for-vs-international-society-for-on-15-september-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"International Society For … vs International Society For … on 15 September, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"International Society For ... vs International Society For ... on 15 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/international-society-for-vs-international-society-for-on-15-september-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"International Society For ... vs International Society For ... on 15 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/international-society-for-vs-international-society-for-on-15-september-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-09-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-05-08T03:56:49+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"90 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/international-society-for-vs-international-society-for-on-15-september-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/international-society-for-vs-international-society-for-on-15-september-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"International Society For … vs International Society For … on 15 September, 2009","datePublished":"2009-09-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-08T03:56:49+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/international-society-for-vs-international-society-for-on-15-september-2009"},"wordCount":17776,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Karnataka High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/international-society-for-vs-international-society-for-on-15-september-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/international-society-for-vs-international-society-for-on-15-september-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/international-society-for-vs-international-society-for-on-15-september-2009","name":"International Society For ... vs International Society For ... on 15 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-09-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-08T03:56:49+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/international-society-for-vs-international-society-for-on-15-september-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/international-society-for-vs-international-society-for-on-15-september-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/international-society-for-vs-international-society-for-on-15-september-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"International Society For … vs International Society For … on 15 September, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/187491","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=187491"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/187491\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=187491"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=187491"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=187491"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}