ARINDAM SINHA,J. - (1.) The Court:- Mr. Garg, learned Advocate appears on behalf of applicant Sri Supply Syndicate and submits, his client is an unsecured creditor of Baranagore Jute Factory Plc (in liquidation). He hands up Judge's Summons and an affidavit in support thereof affirmed on 12th June, 2018. He submits, this is a non contentious application to bring to my notice that I had appeared on behalf of Jardine Henderson Limited who, according to him, claimed to be a creditor of the company in liquidation. He seeks leave to obtain tender number for regularizing filing of the application. He refers to, inter alia, page 113 of the affidavit in support of Judge's Summons which discloses order dated 12th October, 2012 passed by a Division Bench of this Court. The order shows I had appeared for appellant in item no. 1 who, he submits, is Jardine Henderson Limited. Mr. Garg relies on decisions of Supreme Court, firstly in Chetak Construction Ltd. v. Om Prakash and Others reported in (1998) 4 Supreme Court Cases 577 , to the passage in paragraph 22 extracted below. "The facts contained in the application (IA No. 6079 of 1996) to which reference has been made above supported by documentary evidence, should have made the learned Judge to himself, decline to hear the appeal by a simple order irrespective of the question whether the disclosed facts could have made any difference in the ultimate order to be made by him in the appeal. It would bear repetition to emphasise that justice must not only be done but also be seen to be done. In the established facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that the request of the appellant to the learned Single Judge to recuse himself from hearing the appeal on merits was a wholly unjustified request. Even if it be assumed and we have no reason not to so assume, that there was no such connection between Respondent 3 and the learned Single Judge as to influence his ultimate judgment in the appeal pending before him but when certain facts were brought to his notice, which could give rise to a reasonable and not fanciful apprehension that the trial may not be fair, the learned Single Judge should have recused himself from the appeal in keeping with the highest traditions of the judiciary. Discretion, after all, is the better part of valour. We find the reference/ "direction" untenable and the order devoid of any legal sanctity. We, accordingly, set aside the same."
(2.) Secondly on P.K.Ghosh, I.A.S. and Another v. J.G. Rajput reported in (1995) 6 SCC 744 to paragraph 9 therein.
(3.) On having brought this information to my knowledge, he submits, I should recuse from hearing this case. On query he submits, this is a fresh application covered by paragraph 21 in judgment dated 30th August, 2017, inter alia, disposing of contempt petitions and I.As in Civil Appeal nos. 4298-4299/2017 (Baranagar Jute Factory PLC. Mazdoor Sangh (BMS) v. Baranagar Jute Factory PLC. etc. ) hereinafter referred to as the said judgment.;