PETER RAMESH KUMAR Vs. SUO MOTU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CONSEQUENT to certain untoward incidents having taken place on 04.09.2013, one of us (C.T. Selvam, J.) recorded a memorandum of proceedings which reads as follows:

(2.) I commenced proceedings at 10.30 a.m. and upon hearing counsel and a few of the litigants, I passed orders in a few matters. 15 minutes into the proceedings, a group of advocates led by Mr. Peter Ramesh Kumar approached the Court raising slogans and upon entering my Court hall, Mr. Peter Ramesh Kumar informed that they were observing boycott. Mr. Thangapandiyan, retired Principal of the Madurai Law College, a practising advocate, who was on his legs, continued with his submissions. At such instance, Mr. Peter Ramesh Kumar, proceeded to take hold of Mr. Thangapandiyan and sought to drag him out. Mr. Thangapandiyan resisted. Thereafter, Mr. Peter Ramesh Kumar, with the help of few others dragged Mr. Thangapandiyan, out of the Court hall. There was commotion in the Court hall, some of the advocates challenging the boycott call and others challenging the resistance thereto. Having raised the question if any counsel wished to proceed with their case and being met with silence, I retired to chambers.

(3.) WE may add that paragraph 7 as originally filed also included averments of denial of that which had been recorded by one of us and of his escorting Mr. Thangapandian, Advocate, out of Court towards avoiding him harm. As the denial of the record of proceedings made by the Judge was found highly objectionable and it was realized that we would reject the affidavit outright, such portion was deleted. This is not to say that the rest of the contents, particularly that which try to portray the conduct of the contemnor in good light, are not objectionable. Neither are we to be understood as saying that we would not, could not reject the affidavit even at this stage. Are we to accept the affidavit, seemingly of an apology and of this sort? We will be guided by judicial precedents.