HARATI KALAI Vs. NANDA GOPAL ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these four appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment since they arise out of the same award dated 31 -01 -2003 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, West Tripura, Agartala whereby the learned Tribunal held the claimants entitled to compensation but also held that only the owner of the offending vehicle bearing No. TRT -229, i.e. Nanda Gopal Roy (Saha), was liable to pay the compensation.

(2.) AT the outset, it may be mentioned that the claimants in these appeals had earlier filed petitions seeking transfer of these cases from my Court to any other Judge of this High Court. These petitions were rejected vide order dated 25 -07 -2014 which reads as follows: -

(3.) THE dilemma which a Judge faces when confronted with such a situation has been best described by Hon'ble Justice Manmohan Sarin of the Delhi High Court in the Contempt Proceedings which were initiated against Sri R.K. Anand, a then Senior Advocate of the Delhi High Court. Sri R.K. Anand had filed an application that the Senior Judge of the Bench Hon'ble Justice Manmohan Sarin, as he then was, should recuse from hearing the case on the ground that he was personally hostile to Mr. R.K. Anand. It was alleged that when both Mr. R.K. Anand and Justice Manmohan Sarin were lawyers, they had many quarrels and verbal exchange of abuses. It was also mentioned that when Justice Manmohan Sarin, prior to his elevation, was Vice -President of the Delhi High Court Bar Association, he had moved a resolution before the Executive Committee of the Association opposing any proposal for the appointment of Sri R.K. Anand as Judge of the High Court of Delhi. Other allegations were also levelled. Justice Manmohan Sarin held as follows: -