Chennai
A division bench comprising Justice P N Prakash and Justice P Rajamanickam passed the direction while dismissing a plea moved by T Ashok Surana (petitioner) who had challenged the first proviso to Section 19(1) of the Recovery of Debts and Dues to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. He had claimed that the temporary proviso which expired on November 11, 2004, is being applied even today unconsciously violating the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14 (Part III) of the Constitution of India.
The bench on narrating the pain the court had taken to inform the petitioner about the plea coming up for hearing on more than two occasions, said, “He harangued that he will not make his submissions before this Bench, because, one of us (Justice Prakash) has committed genocide and crime against humanity on a scale unknown to mankind. He further stated that he has filed a case against one of us (Justice Prakash) and on that score, this Bench should not hear this case.”
“Under normal circumstances, this Court would have gladly recused itself from hearing this case. This is not a solitary attempt by the present party-in-person to intimidate the Judges of this Court and successfully prevent them from hearing his cases. He has adopted these tactics with more than 20 Judges of this Court and has ensured that they had recused themselves from hearing his cases. It is high time that this Court puts a full stop to such pernicious techniques. This case has been posted before us as a specially ordered case by the Acting Chief Justice, who was the master of the roster,” Justice Prakash leading the bench said.
Also, noting that when this Court told him that he may have to face action for contempt of Court, he stated that he is ready to face any action and that he will challenge it before the Supreme Court and get justice therefrom, the bench said “Therefore, in view of the recalcitrant attitude of this litigant, this writ petition stands dismissed.”
“With regard to initiation of action for contempt of Court, the Registry is directed to place this matter before the Chief Justice for appropriate orders,” the bench added.
Visit news.dtnext.in to explore our interactive epaper!
Download the DT Next app for more exciting features!
Click here for iOS
Click here for Android