CaseMinister
CaseMinister › Judgments › Supreme Court › 2016 › Mihir Ranjan Parida v. Menja Naik

Mihir Ranjan Parida v. Menja Naik

Supreme Court of India · 18 April 2016

Court
Supreme Court of India
Decided
18 April 2016
Case no.
C.A. No. 4080 of 2016
Bench
Kurian Joseph, R. Banumathi
Length
2 pages
Have a question about this judgment?

Ask our Legal AI about it on WhatsApp: free, no signup, in English or Hindi.

Write it first.

JUDGMENT

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4080 OF 2016 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.8579 of 2016) MIHIR RANJAN PARIDA APPELLANT

VERSUS

MENJA NAIK AND ORS. RESPONDENTS

JUDGMENT KURIAN, J.

1.
Leave granted.

2. The limited prayer made by the appellant is for expunction of certain adverse observations made by the High Court against the appellant who is the presiding Judge on the trial side. When the matter came up before this Court on 29th March, 2016, this Court issued notice on the following terms:

“Permission to file special leave petition is granted. Issue notice. Dasti, in addition, is permitted. Mr. Raju Ramachandran, learned senior counsel submits that he may be permitted to withdraw ground (D) of the petition.

On request, the permission is granted.

The limited prayer made by the learned senior counsel is only for expunction of the adverse observations made by the High Court against the petitioner. Since it is a matter of expunction, we deem it appropriate to issue notice.

JUDGMENT

However, we make it clear that in case respondents have no objection with regard to the limited prayer for expunction of the adverse observations made by the High Court against the petitioner, they are free not to respond to the notice as well.

Post on 18.04.2016.”

3. It is seen that the notice has already been served on respondents but there is no appearance on their behalf.

4. Having heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, we are of the view that the adverse observations made against the appellant are wholly unwarranted. May be the Judge passed a wrong order; but that does not mean that even wrong order should be visited with such adverse remarks. All adverse remarks/observations against the appellant contained in the impugned order are hence expunged.

4.
The appeal is allowed.

...............J.
[KURIAN JOSEPH]

...............J.
[R. BANUMATHI]

NEW DELHI;
APRIL 18, 2016

Ask CaseMinister about Mihir Ranjan Parida v. Menja Naik

Your 24×7 legal assistant on WhatsApp answers with the judgments that apply, in English or Hindi. No signup needed.

Questions about this judgment, or a case like it?Ask on WhatsApp