A.M. MATHUR versus PRAMOD KUMAR GUPTA

A High Court Judge, having held that the court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a review petition, is not justified in making adverse comments on the professional conduct of an advocate—especially without affording the advocate an opportunity to respond. Such remarks were wholly unjustified, unwarranted, and made without jurisdiction, and must be expunged.

Parties: Appellant: A.M. Mathur; Respondent: Pramod Kumar Gupta
Jurisdiction: India
Judgment Date: 22 March 1990
Procedural Posture: Civil Appeal / Appeal From Madhya Pradesh High Court Order in M.c.c. No. 213 of 1988
Outcome: Appeal allowed
Legal Topics: Judicial Restraint, Derogatory Remarks by Judges, Natural Justice

Judicial Process Legal Ethics Judicial Restraint Derogatory Remarks by Judges Natural Justice

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2

Parties

A.M. Mathur

Appellant

Pramod Kumar Gupta

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Madhya Pradesh High Court Order in M.c.c. No. 213 of 1988

Legal Issues

1 Whether the High Court Judge was justified in making derogatory remarks against the appellant-Advocate General without affording an opportunity to be heard
2 Whether such judicial comments are permissible when the court holds it lacks jurisdiction

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

All remarks made by B.M. Lal, J. against the appellant in the impugned order are expunged.
No order as to costs.