'You Don't Deserve It': Following Heated Exchange, MP High Court Refers To Full Court To Consider Stripping Lawyer Of 'Senior' Designation

Noting that senior advocate Narinder Pal Singh Ruprah "raised his voice" and caused a "ruckus" during the hearing of an excise matter, the Madhya Pradesh High Court on Monday (April 7) directed the registry to place the lawyer's name before the full court so as consider whether the lawyer can continue as a senior advocate or not. In its last order dated March 28, the Court had directed the responsible person on behalf of respondent No. 5 (new licensee) to be present in the Court on the next date of hearing. Further, the respondents No. 1 to 4 were also asked to take instructions as to how much stock was handed over to Respondent No. 5 as to the stock which belongs to the petitioner (old licensee). A division bench of Chief Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Vivek Jain while dictating its order said: "Today the counsel for respondent has produced a joint application for recording compromise between parties under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC with affidavit...When this court asked Mr Rupah senior counsel whether respondent no. 5 is present in court, he created ruckus in the court and raised voice which has recorded in the live stream of this court. This court has no option but to hear Mr Ruprah and instead of answering query of this court he raised his voice like anything. He is a senior advocate designated by this court. Therefore we are of the view that he doesn't deserve to be senior advocate. Therefore we hear by direct registrar general of this court to put his name before full court whether he could continue as senior advocate or not. Till further order Mr Ruprah shall not appear before this court". At the outset the court expressed its displeasure when it was informed that the parties had entered a compromise. The court orally said, "Mr Ruprah, this is very unfair then. You are taking a very bold stand, nothing is received, this and that...Thats why we have taken the steps to call all...Who is the person? Three dates were wasted". To this Ruprah submitted that he is bound by the instructions of this client.The court however orally remarked, "Mr Ruprah three dates were wasted and who is the person respondent no. 5, ask him to pay the cost. This is not the way. They have come with compromise and paid the money. And three dates you have taken the stand that nothing is received. It is all false. Who is respondent no. 5?". When Ruprah submitted that parties had entered into a compromise the court said that it is upto to the court to accept the compromise or not. "First ask your client to come to the court. He is taking this court for granted.Court has to accept the compromise. Why did you waste three dates and taken a different stand...repeatedly you said nothing was received," the court orally said. Ruprah however submitted, "Nothing was received. But there are many pressures. Listen to what I have to say. I'm here...You don't listen...You don't let me speak. That day also you didn't let me speak. I speak one word and you stop me. The document referred in the order sheet) Im surprised to see...that document is not supplied. Annexure P-3 is totally false fabricated. Please permit me to speak. It is your right to deliver the judgment. Its my request to listen to me. You don't listen to me. My client is so terrorized that even though he has not taken one single bottle he has compromised the matter". The court at this stage said, "Mr Ruprah. This is not the way. Listen to what Court has to say...Let me pass the order". However Ruprah submitted, "Original of one is not in the record. I'm not a wrong man, I'm in this business. I have to subject myself to pressures of excise department. Whatever they say I have to do. All the documents which were mentioned in order sheet copies were not supplied to me. Annex 3 is totally false and fabricated. There is much chaos in Annexure P 3; it is not a signed document. My lord is relying on Annex P 3. There is pressure on me. Therefore I have compromised the matter. The exercise is required only when there is a dispute. When petitioner and respondent no.5 have compromised. In case my lord is interested in academic exercise I will withdraw this compromise application and say 'first you produce original Annexure P 3 I want to see, I want to cross examine each and every witness of theirs'. Annexure P 3 is full of mistakes. My right is to see original annexure and cross examine all those persons. This is not a civil trial. But my lord has been kind enough to proceed into civil trial I will cross examine those witnesses. First order them to produce Annexure P 3. Let us not waste valuable time of this hon'ble court in delving upon this document which is photocopy, without signature. Their statement must be recorded. At the cost of repetition I'm repeating that petitioner and respondent have compromised the matter there is no need tread upon the academic exercise". The court thereafter in its order noted that on March 28 at the request of learned counsel for respondent no. 5, the matter ...

'You Don't Deserve It': Following Heated Exchange, MP High Court Refers To Full Court To Consider Stripping Lawyer Of 'Senior' Designation

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags