News Updates

Justice GS Patel Expresses Regret At Order That Might Have Embarrassed Lawyer [Read Order]

Nitish Kashyap
10 March 2017 6:33 AM GMT
Justice GS Patel Expresses Regret At Order That Might Have Embarrassed Lawyer [Read Order]
Your free access to Live Law has expired
To read the article, get a premium account.
    Your Subscription Supports Independent Journalism
Subscription starts from
(For 6 Months)
Premium account gives you:
  • Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.
  • Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.
Already a subscriber?

In a rare gesture, Justice GS Patel of the Bombay High Court has expressed his regret at the remarks recorded in the order dated February 22, while hearing a notice for motion in a commercial suit filed by Gillete India.

In the order dated March 6, which was first published by Legally India, Justice Patel recorded: “This matter is placed today at my instance. I have done so to clarify that nothing in my order dated 22nd February 2017 is, or was intended to be, a reflection on any of the individual counsel who appeared before me on that day.

I am aware that the order of 22nd February 2017 has gained some currency outside Court. It is a matter of personal regret if this has caused Mr Dave any embarrassment.

Counsel are bound by their instructions. In particular, and I say this since his name appear in the body of that order, my order of 22nd February 2017 was not directed at Mr Dave personally but only at those whose instructions he was briefed to convey.”

As pointed out in our earlier article, the actual issue of delay caused by lengthy filings and applications for adjournment was the primary target for such sarcastic and witty remarks, however, due to extensive coverage by legal news websites, the word got around quickly.

Nimay Dave, who was appearing for the plaintiff on that day, had sought time till April 15 to file a rejoinder as the reply filed by the defendant was “substantial”.

As mentioned in the March 6 Order, Justice Patel’s remarks were directed at the “instructions he (Dave) was briefed to convey”.

Read the order here.

Next Story