A single bench had expressed its inclination to take up suo motu contempt proceedings against the petitioner, P Bagyalakshmi, after holding that she may have abused the process of court.
But the first bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy said the order by the single bench on December 21 did not prejudicially affect the petitioner except in a remark.
“Since a mere remark, even adverse, does not give rise to a right of appeal unless there is any other prejudice caused to the would-be appellant, the prayer for leave is declined,” it said.
“At any rate, if the single bench were to initiate suo motu contempt proceedings, due notice would be received by the petitioner and she would have an opportunity to explain her position,” the bench added.
“It is always open to a court to institute suo motu contempt proceedings and no permission of the Chief Justice is required in the exercise of what is essentially a judicial function.”
PIL seeks NCLAT Chennai bench to hear pending cases too
The Madras High court has been moved challenging the move to allow the newly set up Chennai bench of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) to hear only cases instituted after it had become operational and not those pending at the principal bench in New Delhi.
When the plea moved by chartered accountant V Venkata Siva Kumar as party-in-person came up for hearing, the first bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy ordered notice to NCLAT and Centre returnable by April 21.
The petitioner submitted that if a new court was created but cases pending within the redefined jurisdiction were not transferred to it, it would create two categories of unintelligible classes of cases – those filed before the creation of the new court, and those filed after the new court comes into existence.
“In such a scenario, lawyers and the litigant-public will be constrained to pursue their remedies before two forums. Worse, there will arise a third category of litigants if an interlocutory application (IA) needs to be filed for a pending case. The new IA will have to be filed before the old jurisdiction court, though they are to be filed after the new court comes into existence,” the petitioner said in his public interest litigation.
Based on this, he sought for a direction that besides new cases, all the pending cases coming under the jurisdiction of NCLAT, Chennai bench, should also be transferred to it from the principal bench.