The Delhi High Court on Tuesday pulled up advocate Deepak Khosla for levelling objectionable allegations against opposing counsels including Senior Advocate Kirti Uppal..Khosla, no stranger to controversy, had sent an email principally addressed to Uppal, cautioning him against making false claims in the Court..The email was referred to in the application moved by Khosla praying for the proceedings to be recorded (audio/video) or having the entire hearing transcribed by multiple court stenographers in the matter of Vikram Bakshi v. The State and Anr..The email stated,.“…if you attempt to make submissions which can only be termed (at least hereafter) as an intentional attempt to mislead the Hon’ble Court and waste its valuable time, take note that I will be pressing for criminal contempt of Court charges, read with perjury, inter alia, prosecutable under Section 209 of the Indian Penal Code against all concerned..Please note that “acting on instructions” does not absolve even a Senior Advocate from recriminatory action by the Hon’ble Court if it can be demonstrated that he is knowledge misleading the Court..Before you decide to display any machismo (or whatever be the advocacy equivalent of the same) and frame a snarlingly (or “sneeringly”) “fitting” reply, you would be well-advised to read Section 209 of the India Penal Code first….…Lastly, please read some judicial precedents on conduct of advocates, and how advocates, too, are liable for their conduct in Court. (Of course, that may sound like Greek of many lawyers who practices in India, but fortunately, there is a lot of Latin in the precedents as well; and Greek and Latin are close.”.Khosla, in the email, had also referred to a news article that the Calcutta High Court had issued notice to the partners of the law firm Khaitan & Co on a complaint filed by him for contempt and perjury..While dismissing the application moved by Khosla, the Single Judge Bench of Justice C Hari Shankar ordered that Rs. 20,000 be deposited by Khosla with the Prime Minister’s Relief Fund within a period of two weeks. The Bench held,.“This court is constrained to note that the tone and tenor of the allegations levelled by Mr Khosla against counsel, including senior counsel, especially in his e-mail are objectionable and are practically an attempt at insult, rather than a reflection of injury….. Mr Khosla would be well advised to be more temperate and civilized in his communications, oral as well as written.”.On the question of having the proceedings of the matter recorded, the Court relied on earlier decisions and observed that it can only be done as a measure of infusing transparency and when all the counsels appearing consent to the said arrangement..“In the perception of this court, the averments contained in the present application do not make out any case for issuance of any direction to video/audio record the proceedings or to have them transcribed by multiple court stenographers..…this court is constrained to record, regrettably, that the present application of Mr Khosla amounts to an attempt at adventurism, and is plainly abusive of the process of law, apparently with a view to protract the proceedings and avoid a hearing on the substantive petition.”.The Court also observed that Khosla had made such requests of recording the proceedings multiple times in the past, all of which were declined..Read the order:
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday pulled up advocate Deepak Khosla for levelling objectionable allegations against opposing counsels including Senior Advocate Kirti Uppal..Khosla, no stranger to controversy, had sent an email principally addressed to Uppal, cautioning him against making false claims in the Court..The email was referred to in the application moved by Khosla praying for the proceedings to be recorded (audio/video) or having the entire hearing transcribed by multiple court stenographers in the matter of Vikram Bakshi v. The State and Anr..The email stated,.“…if you attempt to make submissions which can only be termed (at least hereafter) as an intentional attempt to mislead the Hon’ble Court and waste its valuable time, take note that I will be pressing for criminal contempt of Court charges, read with perjury, inter alia, prosecutable under Section 209 of the Indian Penal Code against all concerned..Please note that “acting on instructions” does not absolve even a Senior Advocate from recriminatory action by the Hon’ble Court if it can be demonstrated that he is knowledge misleading the Court..Before you decide to display any machismo (or whatever be the advocacy equivalent of the same) and frame a snarlingly (or “sneeringly”) “fitting” reply, you would be well-advised to read Section 209 of the India Penal Code first….…Lastly, please read some judicial precedents on conduct of advocates, and how advocates, too, are liable for their conduct in Court. (Of course, that may sound like Greek of many lawyers who practices in India, but fortunately, there is a lot of Latin in the precedents as well; and Greek and Latin are close.”.Khosla, in the email, had also referred to a news article that the Calcutta High Court had issued notice to the partners of the law firm Khaitan & Co on a complaint filed by him for contempt and perjury..While dismissing the application moved by Khosla, the Single Judge Bench of Justice C Hari Shankar ordered that Rs. 20,000 be deposited by Khosla with the Prime Minister’s Relief Fund within a period of two weeks. The Bench held,.“This court is constrained to note that the tone and tenor of the allegations levelled by Mr Khosla against counsel, including senior counsel, especially in his e-mail are objectionable and are practically an attempt at insult, rather than a reflection of injury….. Mr Khosla would be well advised to be more temperate and civilized in his communications, oral as well as written.”.On the question of having the proceedings of the matter recorded, the Court relied on earlier decisions and observed that it can only be done as a measure of infusing transparency and when all the counsels appearing consent to the said arrangement..“In the perception of this court, the averments contained in the present application do not make out any case for issuance of any direction to video/audio record the proceedings or to have them transcribed by multiple court stenographers..…this court is constrained to record, regrettably, that the present application of Mr Khosla amounts to an attempt at adventurism, and is plainly abusive of the process of law, apparently with a view to protract the proceedings and avoid a hearing on the substantive petition.”.The Court also observed that Khosla had made such requests of recording the proceedings multiple times in the past, all of which were declined..Read the order:
