K L SHARMA Vs. UCO BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHRI K.L. Sharma instituted S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 61/4/80 in this Court on 25.3.80. In this writ petition, the petitioner interalia prayed for quashing of order dated 3.4.1979 (Annx. 8) imposing certain punishment upon him. This writ petition was admitted on 1.4.80. Respondents could not be served for quite some time and the case lingered on for service of the respondents. It appears that Shri Mag Raj Kalla, Advocate (as he then was) was engaged by the respondents to contest this writ petition. No reply was filed by the respondents for almost 10 years or so. Shri Mag Raj Kalla, Advocate was eventually elevated as Judge of this Court and file was entrusted to Shri M.R. Singhvi by Shri Mag Raj Kalla. It does not appear that even after Shri M.R. Singhvi took over charge of the case, any reply was filed by the respondents. Shri M.R. Singhvi pleaded no instructions in the matter on 23.10.91. The case was, thereupon heard ex -parte and the writ petition was accepted vide order dated 23.10.91.

(2.) NOW , the respondents have moved this application for review of the aforesaid order. The ground on which the review is sought is that there was some improper correspondence, which ensued between the respondent -bank and its counsel Shri M.R. Singhvi.

(3.) THE case of the respondents -review petitioners is that a letter, copy of which is Annx. R1 was sent by the Divisional Manager of UCO Bank, Jaipur, which mentioned interalia that the bank had received a letter from Shri M.R. Singhvi dated 5.3.91 regarding the case, but the letter did not indicate the next date of hearing. It was further desired that Shri Singhvi may inform the Bank so that further proceedings may be taken up in the matter. At the end of the letter, which was typed written a hand written post -script was added conveying that it was learnt that Shri Singhvi did not know about the date of hearing of the case. Hence he may pay back the fees received by him and may obtain a receipt. Shri M.R. Singhvi felt offenced by this letter. He therefore, wrote a detailed letter dated 24.4.91 to the Managing Director, United Commercial Bank, Head Office, 10 -B, T.M. Sarani, Calcutta 700 001 (Annx. Rule 2). In this letter he mentioned the fact that the bank had engaged Shri Mag Ram Kalla as an Advocate and since Shri Singhvi was looking after the office of Shri Kalla, he considered it his bounden duty to apprise the Divisional Manager, Jaipur but despite repeated information nobody turned up. Letter further mentioned that he also informed the Regional Manager Jodhpur but from there also he received revasive replies. He mentioned that he was shocked by receiving letter dated 11.3.91 from the Divisional Manger UCO Bank, Jaipur by which he was called upon to refund the amount of fees and to obtain receipt. He stated that he had not been paid any amount in connection with this case and the letter was highly derogatory to him. He requested the Managing Director to warn officers not to behave in such a manner in future. This was before Shri Singhvi pleaded no instructions in the matter. It appears that Shri Singhvi also wrote a letter dated 29.4.91 to the Divisional Manager, United Commercial Bank, 26 -A, Bani Park, Jaipur, wherein he stated that he had been informing the Divisional Manager time and again about the case but the Divisional Manager had not taken any interest in the case. He painted out in this letter that the matter was part heard. By this letter he called upon the Divisional Manager, United Commercial Bank, Jaipur to collect the file and in this very letter he mentioned that after expirty of seven days period, he shall plead no instructions.