Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

A full judge bench of the Bombay High Court comprising of Justice G.S Patel, Justice M.S Karnik, and Justice Bharati Dangre has discharged Advocate Mathews J Nedumpura from a contempt notice issued against him.

The case pertains to a Suo Moto Contempt Notice which was issued against Advocate Mathews Nedumpura for his alleged misconduct during a case being heard by the division bench.

The High Court while issuing the contempt notice had recorded that on questions being asked by the bench to the advocate on maintainability the advocate replied “that he does not want to answer any questions of the Court as for the petitioner as “dominus litis” he should be heard”.

The court had also recorded that the advocate had also made abuses against the counsel appearing for respondents. The court further recorded that the advocate walked from the arguing seat and sat in the last row. Subsequently, the advocate came forward again and asked the court to hear him after which he walked out of the court on the bench questioning the advocate on basic issues of the case.

Advocate Mathews Nedumpura in its reply stated that the order does not reflect the true sequence of events and is factually incorrect. He stated that he did not pass any abuses against the respondent or sat on the last row. He stated that

“When I was not allowed to present my case, I took a seat in the second row only to tell Mrs. Rohini Amin, the Advocate on record, that I preferred not to appear any more in the matter and she should seek an adjournment to engage some other counsel. When she tried to submit the same, I only said that if the Hon’ble Court is not willing to hear me, let me go, and I left the Court in a moment of mental trauma and palpitation”

The advocate also apologized for the lapses and mistakes that happened on his part.

Mr. Mehta appearing for the advocate submitted before the court that “Everyone has bad days. Counsel — and possibly even judges — are no exceptions. The question is how such a momentary lapse should be approached.”

The court while discharging the contempt notice noted that Mr. Mathews Nedumpura has made an unconditional and unqualified apology thrice. The court also noted that:

“We do so because it is within our power and remit to accept an apology in these terms, and also because we believe that the contempt powers of this Court must be exercised sparingly. Where there is an apology that meets the requirements of the statute itself and is to the satisfaction of the Court, surely no further action is required.”

CaseTitle: High Court of Judicature at Bombay Versus Mathews J Nedumpara, Advocate