38.6c New Delhi, India, Sunday, August 31, 2025
Top Stories Supreme Court
Political NEWS Legislative Corner Celebstreet International Videos
Subscribe Contact Us
close
Judiciary

25K Fine Imposed on a Litigant By Delhi High Court For Alleging Judicial Bias Without Any Material

By LawStreet News Network      21 March, 2022 06:11 PM      0 Comments
Delhi High Court Alleging Judicial Bias Without Any Material

The Delhi High Court imposed a fine of Rupees Twenty Five Thousand (Rs. 25k) on a litigant who accused a Trial Judge for being biased against him. The Delhi High Court called it an example of abuse of process. The High Court was of the opinion that the allegations which ware without any material. 

According to Justice C Hari Shankar though the nature of bias is like an apprehension rather than a proof, it must be real and not any method to somehow try ones luck before another Court.

The Court remarked that Allegations of bias against a Judicial Officer are not to be likely made. Even issuance of notice on such an application has serious repercussions for the Judicial Officer concerned.

According to the Court every judicial officer is required to act free from any fear or favour, affection or will, and that it is the solemn oath which every Judicial Officer subscribes to, when he enters into his office.

The Court also said that if a request for transfer such as this, alleging, without any material facts, is to be entertained, this Court is constrained to observe that it would be impossible for Judicial Offers to discharge their duties without fear or favour.

Considering that the Court abstains from imposing costs on litigants who prosecute their cases on their own, The Court remarked: This case, however, is an extreme example of abuse of process. It seeks, in a manner completely contrary to the law, to interfere with pending proceedings and also seeks to throw a clod on the integrity of a judicial officer without any material whatsoever.

The Court was also dealing with a petition which sought intervention with respect to an order dated 9th March, 2022 and which was passed by the District Judge, Kakardooma Courts. The petitioner preferred an application and did appear in person before the trial Court. Under Section 24 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking a transfer of civil suit from the Court of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, where the suit was pending, to another Court.

The petitioner sought the transfer of the case which the ASJ was presently dealing with and was biased against him. Three instances were quoted by the petitioner in order to affirm his allegation. They are as follows-

1) The order dated 15th Seotemder,2021, the ASJ has dismissed a review application filed by the petitioner on the ground of limitation, despite the Supreme Court having, by its orders in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3/2020 extended limitation during the period of COVID pandemic.

2) The Additional Senior Civil Judge ought to have rectified an earlier order dated 9th December,2021 instead of merely contenting himself by taking the application on record. It was argued that till such rectification was done, the erroneous recital in the order would continue to be part of the part of the record and would prejudice him in future proceedings.

3) The bias was alleged with respect to an application under Section 65 of Indian Evidence Act, which was preferred by the respondent, to bring on record, in the proceedings, a copy of an undertaking which was given by them in the suit.

The order by the District Judge observed that petitioner was unable to make any convincing case of the legitimate apprehension against the ASCJ.

After hearing the litigant in person, the Court said, Prima facie, this petition is an abuse of process of court. The petitioner has apparently no bonafide case of bias against the learned ASCJ. A case of bias is being sought to be built up merely because the proceedings are not progressing as the petitioner would have them progress."

It was also added "I am constrained, therefore, despite the fact that the petitioner appears in person, to dismiss this petition with costs of 25,000/ - to be deposited by the petitioner with the Registry of this Court by way of a crossed cheque favouring the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee." The plea was dismissed.

The Case title is Ankur Mutreja Vs Aviation Employees Building Society LTD.



Share this article:

User Avatar
About:


Leave a feedback about this
TRENDING NEWS

words-spreads-faster-than-winds-sc-relies-on-testimony-of-neighbour-acquits-woman-in-dowry-harassment-case
Trending Judiciary
'Words spreads faster than winds,' SC relies on testimony of neighbour; acquits woman in dowry harassment case [Read Judgment]

SC acquits woman in dowry case, citing neighbour’s testimony: “Word spreads faster than wind” — conviction under Section 498A set aside.

30 August, 2025 05:54 PM
sc-refuses-to-entertain-plea-against-use-of-temples-land-funds-for-building-college-in-chennai
Trending Judiciary
SC refuses to entertain plea against use of temples' land, funds for building college in Chennai

SC refuses plea against use of Chennai temples’ land, ₹25 cr funds for building college, says using temple assets for education not improper.

30 August, 2025 06:01 PM

TOP STORIES

sc-restores-mandatory-20-percent-deposit-for-suspension-of-sentence-in-cheque-bounce-case
Trending Judiciary
SC Restores Mandatory 20% Deposit for Suspension of Sentence in Cheque Bounce Case [Read Order]

SC sets aside P&H HC order; rules 20% deposit mandatory for suspension of sentence in ₹8.65 crore cheque bounce case under NI Act.

25 August, 2025 12:35 PM
18-former-judges-write-to-union-home-minister-amit-shah-criticizing-his-remarks-on-justice-b-sudershan-reddy
Trending Judiciary
18 Former Judges write to Union Home Minister Amit Shah, criticizing his remarks on Justice B Sudershan Reddy

18 ex-judges write to Union HM Amit Shah, criticizing his remarks on Justice B Sudershan Reddy, stressing judicial independence and dignity.

25 August, 2025 03:09 PM
sc-stays-investigation-into-firs-against-csds-co-director-sanjay-kumar
Trending Judiciary
SC stays investigation into FIRs against CSDS co director Sanjay Kumar

SC stays probe into FIRs against CSDS co-director Sanjay Kumar over Maharashtra polling data post; says multiple cases show harassment motive.

25 August, 2025 03:14 PM
influencers-indulging-in-commercial-speech-cant-claim-fundamental-right-sc
Trending CelebStreet
Influencers indulging in commercial speech can't claim fundamental right: SC

SC: Influencers making commercial speech can’t claim fundamental rights; must apologize and act responsibly towards community sensitivities.

25 August, 2025 04:18 PM

ADVERTISEMENT


Join Group

Signup for Our Newsletter

Get Exclusive access to members only content by email