Disposes of an appeal questioning a single judge's recusal. Upholds the recusal as warranted. Orders transfer of the suit to another bench and extends an interim stay till the next hearing.
Single Judge's recusal upheld; suit transferred to another bench; interim stay extended till February 02, 2016; appeal disposed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~10
HAVELLS INDIA LTD ..... Appellant Represented by: Mr.Chander M.Lall, Mr.Sudeep Chatterjee and Ms.Nancy Roy, Advocates.
versus
THE ADVERTISING STANDARDS COUSEL OF INDIA ..... Respondent Represented by: Mr.Balbir Singh, Sr.Advocate instructed by Ms.Avni Singh and Mr.A.Baghel, Advocates.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
O R D E R % 22.01.2016
1. The appellant’s grievance is two-fold. Firstly that the learned Single Judge who had appeared as a counsel, albeit in an unconnected matter against the appellant, having recused in another matter in which the appellant was a party ought to have recused. Secondly against the merits of the reason given declining ad-interim ex-parte stay.
2. As regards the first grievance, learned counsel for the respondent fairly states that she has nothing to say because it relates to the propriety of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in the absence of the respondent.
Page 1 of 4
FAO(OS) 596/2015
3. In our opinion once the learned Single Judge had recused in another matter for the reason as a counsel he had appeared against the appellant, albeit in some other matter, recusal was warranted even in the instant suit because the reason for the recusal in the first was the same as in the second.
4. On merits we find that the predecessor Bench while issuing notice has recorded prima-facie reasons as to why ex-parte ad-interim injunction was warranted followed by the ad-interim injunction being granted as also Local Commissioner appointed.
5. We dispose of the appeal with consent of parties recording that the reasons given by the Division Bench in the ex-parte ad-interim order dated October 29, 2015 would be transposed as the reasons for grant of an ex-parte adinterim order in suit and the respondents (impleaded as defendants) in the suit would be entitled to take all pleas in the written statement and the opposition to the confirmation of the same.
6. Uninfluenced by the ex-parte ad-interim view taken by the Predecessor Bench, which needless to state was in the absence of the respondents, the learned Single Judge would decide IA No.22361/2015, which application has been listed by the learned Single Judge for consideration on February 24, 2016. Declining ex-parte ad-interim stay the learned Judge has simply issued notice.
7. The ex-parte ad-interim order passed by the predecessor Division Bench on October 29, 2015 shall continue till disposal of IA No.22361/2015. The learned Judge In-charge Original Side would mark the suit to some other Bench.
8. No costs. FAO(OS) 596/2015
Page 2 of 4
Page 3 of 4
FAO(OS) 596/2015
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
MUKTA GUPTA, J.
JANUARY 22, 2016 ‘vn’
Page 4 of 4
FAO(OS) 596/2015
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a single judge should be recused when he appeared as counsel in an unconnected matter against the appellant.
Whether an ex-parte ad-interim stay should be granted in the suit.
Whether the file of the suit should be transferred to another bench due to the recusal issue.
Havells India Ltd
The Advertising Standards Counsel of India
Pradeep Nandrajog
Mukta Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
An appeal to a Division Bench against an order made by a single judge on the original side of the High Court.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
