TULSIDAS AMANMAL KARANI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application to the High Court in its disciplinary jurisdiction made by the Advocate General of Bombay in the matter of Tulsidas Amanmal Karani, an attorney of this Court.

(2.) THE material facts are as follows: In January, 1931, a suit was filed in the Court of Small Causes at Bombay by certain plaintiffs, whose names are not material, against one Choithram Bharmal for the recovery of Rs. 120 for rent. THE suit came on for hearing on February 24, 1931, before Mr. S.E. Kurwa, a Judge of the said Court of Small Causes, and an ex parte decree was passed in favour of the plaintiffs. On August 11, 1931, the plaintiffs issued a notice against one Bharmal Tilokchand, the father of the defendant in the suit, to show cause why his name should not be brought on record as the real defendant and why the decree should not be amended under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, and why execution should not be issued against him. THE allegation was that Bharmal had occupied the premises in question in the name of his son Choithram. In these proceedings several witnesses were examined on behalf of Bharmal of whom one was Karani. THE Judge was unfavourably impressed with Karani's demeanour as a witness. He disbelieved his evidence and criticised it with some; severity. THE notice was made absolute and execution was ordered to be issued against Bharmal. He filed an appeal which was dismissed, and he also went in revision to the High Court but that application was dismissed on December 9, 1932.

(3.) ON December 7, 1939, the Registrar of the Small Causes Court presented a petition to this High Court in its disciplinary jurisdiction. In the petition certain paragraphs from the notice of March 26, 1936, were set out. I may state that you were seriously prejudiced and biassed against me by the unwarranted attack made on me on September 11, 1931." (Karani was here apparently referring to certain remarks made about him by counsel appearing for the plaintiffs in the Small Cause Court suit). "The cumulative effect of your false remarks is that I had given false evidence. The aim of the said false remarks is to ruin my career as a legal practitioner. The language and style of the judgment is quite different from that of your own. Evidently you have played in the hands of some designing persons. You have not hesitated even to record my answers incorrectly. [He then referred to an instance of alleged misrecording of his evidence.] In what other ways you abused your powers as a Judge will be proved at the proper time and place. With a view to vindicate my honour and clear up the cloud cast by you on my character as a witness and also as a legal practitioner I have decided to file a suit against you in the High Court of Bombay for a declaration that the remarks passed by you against me are false, unjustified, malicious and irrelevant, that in the passing of the said remarks you did not act honestly, judicially or in good faith, that the said remarks be expunged from the judgment, that you be made to pay the costs of and incidental to the suit, and for such other reliefs as the Court may deem fit to grant. The Registrar's petition averred that the said notice did not set out the true facts and was a most unbecoming, scandalous and libellous attack on a judicial officer, and prayed, for an inquiry into the conduct of the said Karani and for proper disciplinary action against him.