Allahabad High Court imposes ₹1 lakh costs on man for maligning lawyers, district judges

The Allahabad High Court recently imposed costs of ₹1 lakh on a 77 year-old man for levelling serious allegations against senior advocates and district judges in Kanpur Nagar [Randhir Kumar Pandey v. Purushottam Das Maheshwari]..Justice Neeraj Tiwari noted that the allegations lacked substance and appeared to only be intended to malign the judicial institution."In written submissions filed by the petitioner-defendant before the Appellate Court, there are serious allegations against counsels, District Judge and many other Judges of the Kanpur Nagar Judgeship, which is also not getting support from any affidavit is nothing but an attempt to maligning the reputation of Institution," the Court said. .The Court refrained from initiating contempt of court proceedings against the man (petitioner), considering his advanced age and health issues but dismissed his plea while imposing costs of ₹1 lakh to be paid to the account of the High Court Legal Services Committee."If the petitioner fails to deposit the cost, the Registrar General of the High Court shall inform the District Magistrate / District Collector, Kanpur Nagar for recovery of the said amount as arrears of land revenue," the Court added. .The 77 year-old petitioner Randhir Kumar Pandey had filed a review plea against a May 5, 2024 judgment in a dispute concerning eviction from rented property.The High Court was initially inclined to dismiss Pandey's petition on merits, in the rent property dispute. However, during the May 5 hearing, Pandey's counsel submitted that the septuagenarian did not wish to contest the case on merits and had prayed that one year time may be granted to him to vacate the respondent's shop which he had been renting.The Court had accepted the request on certain conditions directing the Pandey to vacate the shop in question..However, the petitioner later challenged the correctness of this ruling in his review plea and alleged that he never instructed his counsel, Senior Advocate DP Singh, not to contest the case on merits.Appearing party-in-person, the petitioner also made vague allegations against Senior Advocate Atul Dayal and district judges from Kanpur Nagar. None of these allegations were supported by any affidavit, the Court noted.The lawyers also refuted these allegations. Senior Advocate Singh submitted that petitioner had even gone to his chamber/residence and misbehaved with him. Senior Advocate Dayal raised serious complaints about Pandey's behavior as well.The Court found that Pandey's allegations were made without any substance, very unfortunate and uncalled for.Therefore, it dismissed the review plea and ordered the petitioner to deposit ₹1 lakh for filing his vague submissions and for misusing the process of law."Considering the serious health issues of petitioner and his age i.e. 77 years, this Court restrains itself to initiate criminal contempt proceeding against him, but ground so taken by him in the review application is very vague and filing of such review application is gross misuse of process of law, therefore, review application lacks merits and is accordingly dismissed with cost of Rs. 1 lakh, which the petitioner shall deposit before the Registrar General of the High Court within a period of 15 days from today," the Court said in its July 29 order..Randhir Kumar Pandey appeared as party-in-person while Advocate Rama Goel Bansal represented the respondent (in the rental property dispute), Purushottam Das Maheshwari..[Read Order].Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.