Nagpur: The Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court on Monday imposed a ₹5 lakh cost on a cooperative society founder after rejecting his plea seeking recusal of Justice Anil Pansare from a contempt case. It held that his allegations of personal prejudice against the judge were unsupported by evidence and appeared to be an attempt to avoid the bench.
Court Denies Recusal Request for Justice Pansare in Contempt Case
Manmode’s request for Justice Pansare to recuse himself from a contempt case was denied by the bench. Manmode argued that Justice Pansare had previously been a member of the society and had served as its advocate. The bench referenced a Supreme Court observation suggesting that judges who are personally attacked should generally refrain from hearing related contempt matters. However, the bench concluded that this guideline is not absolute and determined that the specific circumstances of the case did not justify Justice Pansare’s recusal.
The court added Manmode should have disclosed the alleged dispute when the contempt petition was first heard on Feb 23. Because of an earlier order directing a CBI inquiry into its affairs, he also alleged Justice Pansare was prejudiced towards the society.
“The attempt is to malign the judge with a view to get a favourable order of recusal,” it said. Referring to SC judgments on criminal contempt and judicial independence, the court said litigants could not be permitted to intimidate or malign judges to obtain orders of their choice. It cited the settled principle that attempts to browbeat a court or engage in “forum shopping” must not be allowed to undermine the administration of justice.
He claimed disputes had arisen between them over work assigned to the judge and later over the foreclosure of loans availed from the society. It also rejected his allegation that the judge ensured the matter remained before a bench comprising the judge himself. The bench concluded the allegations against Justice Pansare were an attempt to secure his recusal.
The court noted that Supreme Court had subsequently modified that order and constituted a three-member special investigation team to probe into the matter.