Supreme Court Directs Delhi High Court t o drop all actions against ADJ Kamin Lau after her unconditional Apology to Delhi High Court

If you liked the Article Share it with your love ones because Sharing is caring!

The Supreme Court of India bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra on this Friday directed the Delhi High Court to drop all proceedings against Additional District Judge Kamini Lau after she had tendered an unconditional apology to High Court as directed by the Supreme Court of India.

Supreme Court Directs Delhi High Court t o drop all actions against ADJ Kamin Lau after her unconditional Apology to Delhi High Court

The Hon’ble Bench directed that no action should be taken against the petitioner in pursuance of the directions issued in paragraphs 29 and 30 of the impugned order passed by the Hon’ble High Court, and as the matter stands closed, no contrary entrance shall be made that relates to the proceedings before the High Court.
It may be noted that on January 15, the Supreme Court of India had directed the petitioner to tender an unconditional regret to the Hon’ble High Court. An unconditional apology has been filed by the Judge (Kamini Lau) before the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, which on 09.02.2018. The Hon’ble High Court, on February 9, in view of the apology, discharged the Judge from the criminal contempt proceedings directed to be issued on December 22, 2017.
On this Friday, the Supreme Court of India observed that, “As the High Court has discharged the petitioner of criminal contempt on tendering unconditional apology, since the petitioner has felt repentant and contrite, we are inclined to state that no action should be taken against the petitioner in pursuance of the directions issued in (the impugned order passed by the Delhi High Court)”
Background of the case
The petitioner had filed four applications before the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, seeking expunction of definite remarks made by the Single Judge of the Delhi High Court in the course of the hearing of the appeals filed against the judgments rendered by the Additional District Judge.
The petitioner sought the expunction of the findings by the Single Judge of the Delhi High Court to the effect that the finding of the Additional District Judge regarding the non-applicability of section 58(f) of the Transfer of Property Act of 1882 to Delhi was returned in a “casual” manner; the Judge had acted in a strict manner by closing the evidence of the plaintiff on the very first day of the hearing for recording the evidence on which the advocates were also on strike; the Judge had acted illegally in dismissing the suits for specific performance of agreements of sale on the ground that the agreements of sale were collusive and also that the suits were wrongly valued having inaccurately linked the valuation for the purpose of monetary jurisdiction to the circle rates; and finally, the order of the Single Judge needing the judgments of the Additional District Judge impugned before himself to be placed before the Annual Confidential Reports (ACR) Committee.
By virtue of these findings, the Single Judge had also required the judgements of the Additional District Judge impugned before himself be placed before the Committee of Reviewing Judges of the Additional District Judge.
The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court had declined to obliterate the aforesaid findings as well as the direction for reference to the Reviewing Judges, noting that the observations of the Single Judge were not in the nature of strictures or contrary personal remarks but totally judicial in character.
On account of the accusations by the Additional District Judge in her applications that the Single Judge has dishonoured the “norms of judicial propriety”, the Division Bench of the High Court had directed commencement of proceedings for criminal contempt against the Additional District Judge, in addition to an administrative investigation.
The Division Bench of Delhi High Court had also required the applications filed by the Additional District Judge to be placed before the concerned ACR Committee.
On this Friday, the Supreme Court bench further ruled, “…as the matter stands closed, no adverse entry shall be made that pertains to the proceedings before the High Court in (the relevant Regular First Appeals)…”, expunging the contrary remarks of the High Court.
Senior Advocate Mr. Kapil Sibal appeared on behalf of Dr. Kamini Lau, who was present in the Court.

If you liked the Article Share it with your love ones because Sharing is caring!

Leave a Comment