5 April 2021 2:00 PM GMT
Justice GS Patel of the Bombay High Court recently rejected an application seeking his recusal from hearing a case and transfer to some other Court after the party, Respondent in the pending matter, cited the reason of not having faith in him. While rejecting the said application, Justice GS Patel opined thus: "The application for recusal is rejected outright. This is nothing but...
Justice GS Patel of the Bombay High Court recently rejected an application seeking his recusal from hearing a case and transfer to some other Court after the party, Respondent in the pending matter, cited the reason of not having faith in him.
While rejecting the said application, Justice GS Patel opined thus:
"The application for recusal is rejected outright. This is nothing but forum shopping. It is a practice that has been consistently deprecated in this High Court and in the Supreme Court as well. The matter is still at large. Parties are not entitled to hop from judge to judge until they get what they perceive to be a favourable order. The Respondent cannot base such an application on the merits of the matter. These are yet to be addressed."
The application of recusal came in view of a pending matter being heard by Justice Patel. The application, filed by the Respondent in the matter, said:
"From the orders passed by the Honourable Justice G.S. Patel till this day as well as his way of working of not giving to the real heir enough opportunity to collect the necessary documents, I have become absolutely certain that I will never get justice from him. Hence, our aforesaid matter may kindly be transferred from his Court to some other Court as we have no faith in him."
Noting that the merits or the matter were yet to be addressed by him, Justice Patel observed that even while hearing the said case, he had taken the "trouble of ensuring" that the said Respondent has "adequate notice". Moreover, it was further clarified by Justice Patel that the matter will be heard on merits.
The application also mentioned certain Letters of Administration which were allegedly obtained by the Respondent which according to the petitioner was an attempt by the Respondent to transfer various immovable properties involved in the matter. While observing that there cannot be any question of the Respondent for needing time to obtain documents, the Court said:
"In any case, there is no application on merits explaining why further time is required or what further documents are required. If such a case is made out even today, and there is substance in that case, I will of course aford the Respondent adequate opportunity to get the necessary documents. But wording an application in such generalities — without specifying what documents, from where, or why, when we are dealing with a grant of Letters of Administration and not a question of any individual property — is entirely misconceived."
In other news, the Supreme Court has recently observed that a litigant cannot seek recusal of a judge from hearing his/her case on the ground that he/she may not get a favourable order.
A bench comprising of Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice MR Shah observed thus:
"We see no valid and good ground for recusal by one of us. Merely because the order might not be in favour of the applicant earlier, cannot be a ground for recusal. A litigant cannot be permitted to browbeat the Court by seeking a Bench of its choice. Therefore, the prayer of the applicant petitioner in person that one of us (Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J.) should recuse from hearing the present miscellaneous application is not accepted and the said prayer is rejected."
Click Here To Read Order