CHETAK CONSTRUCTION LTD. versus OM PRAKASH AND ORS.

CHETAK CONSTRUCTION LTD. versus OM PRAKASH AND ORS.

The Single Judge, though rightly recusing, acted without jurisdiction in directing the appeal to be finally decided by the Supreme Court and in suggesting that it not be remanded to any other Judge or High Court. Such direction is subversive of judicial discipline and has no legal basis. No case for contempt was made out against the appellant or lawyers for requesting the Judge to recuse himself; such requests, supported by facts raising reasonable apprehension of bias, do not per se amount to contempt.

Parties
Appellant: Chetak Construction Ltd.; Respondents: Om Prakash and Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
20 April 1998
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Order/direction of Single Judge of Madhya Pradesh High Court; Also Disposing Reference for Contempt Initiation.
Outcome
Impugned order/direction of the Single Judge is set aside; appeal and reference disposed of. No contempt proceedings to be initiated. Appeal remanded to High Court to be assigned by Chief Justice at Jabalpur for expeditious disposal.
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Judicial Impartiality, Recusal of Judge, Forum Shopping, Jurisdiction of High Courts and Supreme Court
Constitutional Law Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Judicial Impartiality Recusal of Judge Forum Shopping Jurisdiction of High Courts and Supreme Court

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chetak Construction Ltd.

Appellant

Om Prakash and Ors.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Order/direction of Single Judge of Madhya Pradesh High Court; Also Disposing Reference for Contempt Initiation.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Single Judge of the High Court was justified in making a reference/direction for the Supreme Court to decide the appeal finally and not remand it to any Judge of the High Court.
  2. 2 Whether a case for contempt was made out against the appellant and certain lawyers for requesting recusal of the Single Judge based on allegations of conflict of interest.

Ratio Decidendi

The Single Judge, though rightly recusing, acted without jurisdiction in directing the appeal to be finally decided by the Supreme Court and in suggesting that it not be remanded to any other Judge or High Court. Such direction is subversive of judicial discipline and has no legal basis. No case for contempt was made out against the appellant or lawyers for requesting the Judge to recuse himself; such requests, supported by facts raising reasonable apprehension of bias, do not per se amount to contempt.

Court Disposition

Impugned order/direction of the Single Judge is set aside; appeal and reference disposed of. No contempt proceedings to be initiated. Appeal remanded to High Court to be assigned by Chief Justice at Jabalpur for expeditious disposal.

Orders

  • Impugned order/direction of Single Judge set aside.
  • Misc. Appeal No. 143 of 1994 to be placed before the Chief Justice of High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur for assignment to a Judge at Jabalpur (not Indore or Gwalior) for hearing and disposal.