9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 812X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d validity of the order passed in the miscellaneous application seeking to correct the mistakes in the initial order of the Tribunal. 2. However, Mr.Sanjiv Shah was at pains to point out that in para 17 passed by the Tribunal on 13th December, 2013 on a miscellaneous application 234 to 237 of 2013 there are certain adverse remarks not only against the assessee but against the representative of the assessee. The representative of the assessee is a Chartered Accountant and was only performing his professional duties. That he had argued at length and the Tribunal was required to pass a detailed order even on a Miscellaneous Application does not justify passing critical remarks. He would, therefore, submit that the following observations and t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f a case and it could be justly and fairly reached on the basis of material produced and the arguments canvassed, then, the Courts and Tribunals should refrain from passing any adverse remarks or making harsh comments on the conduct of the parties. Sobriety and restraint in judicial conduct is of paramount importance. Even if the Presiding Officer, members of the Tribunal are agitated by prolong arguments and often needless, still they must not lose patience and to a extent as to comment upon the conduct of the Advocates or representatives. That must been avoided as it would be a reflection on the working of the Tribunal as a whole. While not making any further reference to the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we would only invit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... udicial in nature, and should not normally depart from sobriety, moderation and reserve." In the case of 'K' a Judicial Officer reported in A.I.R. 2001 Supreme Court, 972, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under :- 9. The courts do have power to express opinion, make observations and even offer criticism on the conduct of anyone coming within their gaze of judicial review but the question is one of impelling need, justification and propriety. The following observation by Sulaiman, J. in Panchanan Banerji Vs. Upendra Nath Bhattacharji was cited with approval before this Court in Niranjan Patnaik Vs. Sashibhusan Kar and Anr. 1986 (2) SCR 569: "The High Court, as the Supreme Court of revision, must be deemed to have power to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... conclusion of the Judge nor even necessary to his argument and is likely to militate seriously against party's earning a living in his profession should be expunged from the judgment." 13. In A.M. Mathur Vs. Pramod Kumar Gupta, 1990 (2) SCC 533 : (AIR 1990 SC 1737) this Court sounded a note of caution emphasising a general principle of highest importance to the proper administration of justice that derogatory remarks ought not to be made against persons or authorities whose conduct comes into consideration unless it is absolutely necessary for the decision of the case to animadvert on their conduct and said (at P.1741 OF AIR): "Judicial restraint and discipline are as necessary to the orderly administration of justice as they are to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
