Supreme Court Issues Contempt Notice To Vishakhapatnam Bar Association For Abstaining From Court Work

The Supreme Court on Friday (July 26) issued a contempt notice to the Vishakhapatnam Bar Association for abstaining from court work and thereby preventing the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) in Vishakhapatnam from functioning.A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Agustine George Masih was dealing with an SLP against Andhra Pradesh High Court order disposing the petitioner's writ petition which claimed that the DRT has not considered its Securitization Application filed in 2022 despite urgency.An affidavit of compliance filed by the petitioner indicated that the Vishakhapatnam Bar Association had repeatedly called for abstention from court work, resulting in the DRT at Vishakhapatnam being unable to function, the Supreme Court noted. As per DRT's order dated January 16, 2024, the petitioner's application was adjourned to April 19, 2024 in view of resolution of the Visakhapatnam Bar Association to abstain from court work to protest against Land Titling Act, 2002.“Prima facie, this amounts to a breach of this Court's decisions and prima facie, it is a civil and criminal contempt. We, therefore, issue notice to Vishakhapatnam Bar Association through its Secretary, returnable on 2nd September, 2024 calling upon him to show cause why action should not be initiated against the association for civil and criminal contempt”, the Court stated in its order.The Court directed the notice to be forwarded to the Registrar General of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, who has to ensure that the notice is served. A copy of the order will accompany the notice and be forwarded to the DRT, Vishakhapatnam.The Supreme Court was informed that the case is scheduled for hearing before the DRT, Vishakhapatnam, on July 30, 2024. The Supreme Court directed the DRT to proceed with the hearing on the specified date and made it clear that if the DRT does not hear the case on July 30, 2024, it will take up the matter for hearing on merits.The Supreme Court as well as various High Courts have often deprecated the lawyers' going on strike. In November last year, Court deprecated lawyers' boycott of work in the Rajasthan HC and issued notice to Rajasthan High Court Bar Association and the Bar Council of India.In 2021, Rajasthan High Court Bar Association, Jaipur, had tendered 'unconditional & unqualified apology' to the Supreme Court in contempt proceedings for boycotting a bench of the High Court as part of a strike. The Court observed that lawyers' strike is not a solution, and mere aggravates the situation.In April 2023, the Supreme Court directed all High Courts to constitute grievance redressal cells through which the advocates can raise their issues without resorting to strikes.In September last year, the Supreme Court issued notice to a bar association in Odisha for abstaining from court work for a day citing the death of one of its members.In a PIL on continuous strike by the Kanpur Bar Association and the Lawyers' Association, Allahabad HC framed contempt charges against office bearers of the Bar Associations for continuing their strike despite the HC's order (to refrain from boycotting district courts). The HC last month issued contempt notice to the President and Secretary of the District Court Bar Association, Prayagraj over lawyers' strike for 127 days between 1 July 2023 and 30 April 2024.BackgroundThe challenge in the writ petition before the HC was to a Sale Notice dated February 27, 2024, issued by the Assets Care & Reconstruction Enterprise Limited, proposing to auction the subject property on March 18, 2024.The petitioner submitted that its Securitization Application is pending consideration before the Tribunal. When the Assets Care & Reconstruction Enterprise Limited issued the impugned Sale Notice on February 27, 2024, the petitioner filed an interim application in March 2024, seeking a stay of further proceedings pursuant to the notice. The stay application and the main Securitization Application were posted for April 19, 2024 due to the strike.The petitioner's grievance was that, despite the imminent urgency, the applications have not been considered and no orders have been passed by the Tribunal. As a result, the petitioner claimed to suffer irreparable loss and hardship, and the Securitization Application could become infructuous. In the impugned order, the Andhra Pradesh HC disposed the petition directing the respondents not to take any coercive action in respect of the subject properties, subject to the petitioner depositing half of the amount indicated in the impugned auction notice within eight weeks.Case no. – Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 11029/2024Case Title – Superwhizz Professionals Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.Click Here To Read/Download Order

Supreme Court Issues Contempt Notice To Vishakhapatnam Bar Association For Abstaining From Court Work

Amisha Shrivastava

Tags