'You Don't Deserve It': Following Heated Exchange, MP High Court Refers To Full Court To Consider Stripping Lawyer Of 'Senior' Designation

Noting that senior advocate Narinder Pal Singh Ruprah "raised his voice" and caused a "ruckus" during the hearing of an excise matter, the Madhya Pradesh High Court on Monday (April 7) directed the registry to place the lawyer's name before the full court so as consider whether the lawyer can continue as a senior advocate or not. 

In its last order dated March 28, the Court had directed the responsible person on behalf of respondent No. 5 (new licensee) to be present in the Court on the next date of hearing. Further, the respondents No. 1 to 4 were also asked to take instructions as to how much stock was handed over to Respondent No. 5 as to the stock which belongs to the petitioner (old licensee). 

A division bench of Chief Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Vivek Jain while dictating its order said: 

"Today the counsel for respondent has produced a joint application for recording compromise between parties under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC with affidavit...When this court asked Mr Rupah senior counsel whether respondent no. 5 is present in court, he created ruckus in the court and raised voice which has recorded in the live stream of this court. This court has no option but to hear Mr Ruprah and instead of answering query of this court he raised his voice like anything. He is a senior advocate designated by this court. Therefore we are of the view that he doesn't deserve to be senior advocate. Therefore we hear by direct registrar general of this court to put his name before full court whether he could continue as senior advocate or not. Till further order Mr Ruprah shall not appear before this court". 

At the outset the court expressed its displeasure when it was informed that the parties had entered a compromise. 

The court orally said, "Mr Ruprah, this is very unfair then. You are taking a very bold stand, nothing is received, this and that...Thats why we have taken the steps to call all...Who is the person? Three dates were wasted". To this Ruprah submitted that he is bound by the instructions of this client.

The court however orally remarked,  "Mr Ruprah three dates were wasted and who is the person respondent no. 5, ask him to pay the cost. This is not the way. They have come with compromise and paid the money. And three dates you have taken the stand that nothing is received. It is all false. Who is respondent no. 5?". 

When Ruprah submitted that parties had entered into a compromise the court said that it is upto to the court to accept the compromise or not. 

"First ask your client to come to the court. He is taking this court for granted.Court has to accept the compromise. Why did you waste three dates and taken a different stand...repeatedly you said nothing was received," the court orally said. 

Ruprah however submitted, "Nothing was received. But there are many pressures. Listen to what I have to say. I'm here...You don't listen...You don't let me speak. That day also you didn't let me speak. I speak one word and you stop me. The document referred in the order sheet) Im surprised to see...that document is not supplied. Annexure P-3 is totally false fabricated. Please permit me to speak. It is your right to deliver the judgment. Its my request to listen to me. You don't listen to me. My client is so terrorized that even though he has not taken one single bottle he has compromised the matter". 

The court at this stage said, "Mr Ruprah. This is not the way. Listen to what Court has to say...Let me pass the order".

However Ruprah submitted, "Original of one is not in the record. I'm not a wrong man, I'm in this business. I have to subject myself to pressures of excise department. Whatever they say I have to do. All the documents which were mentioned in order sheet copies were not supplied to me. Annex 3 is totally false and fabricated. There is much chaos in Annexure P 3; it is not a signed document. My lord is relying on Annex P 3. There is pressure on me. Therefore I have compromised the matter. The exercise is required only when there is a dispute. When petitioner and respondent no.5 have compromised. In case my lord is interested in academic exercise I will withdraw this compromise application and say 'first you produce original Annexure P 3 I want to see, I want to cross examine each and every witness of theirs'. Annexure P 3 is full of mistakes.  My right is to see original annexure and cross examine all those persons. This is not a civil trial. But my lord has been kind enough to proceed into civil trial I will cross examine those witnesses. First order them to produce Annexure P 3. Let us not waste valuable time of this hon'ble court in delving upon this document which is photocopy, without signature. Their statement must be recorded. At the cost of repetition I'm repeating that petitioner and respondent have compromised the matter there is no need tread upon the academic exercise". 

The court thereafter in its order noted that on March 28 at the request of learned counsel for respondent no. 5, the matter was directed to be posted on  April 4.  The court had directed the responsible person for respondent no. 5 shall also be present in court.

It was further directed that respondent no. 1-4, shall also take instruction as to how much stock was handed over to respondent no. 5 as to the stock which belonged to petitioner. The court noted that on April 4 the manager of respondent no. 5 was present in person and he stated that while preparing 6  panchnamas 31-3-2024 while handing over remainder material he was not present on that day.

"And he did not know as to how much remainder material was handed over. Then he submitted that he was very much there however no stock had been handed over by the petitioner to the respondent no. 5...Counsel for respondent no. 5 submitted...received empty shop and there was no stock available therein. And no stock has been received to the petitioner by respondent no. 5. Accordingly the respondent state was directed to find out and produce all the signatures who have appended their signatures on panchnama dated 31-3-2024 on next date of hearing. It was made clear that they shall be required to answer the questions of the court on next date of hearing  along with the officer respondent state who was present and handed over the stock in favour of respondent no.5 after taking it from petitioner herein. It was made clear that if they are reluctant to be present before the court, the state can take assistance of police to ensure their presence including respondent no.5 personally," the court dictated in its order. 

The court thus noted that despite clear instructions respondent no. 5 was not present in court; it thereafter directed that bailable warrants be issued to ensure respondent no. 5's presence in court and listed the matter on April 9. 

After the court dictated the order, Ruprah submitted that a very stringent punishment had been given to him. "This is something between petitioner and respondent no. 5 why should counsel pay such a heavy price...Please do not divest me of seniority," he said.

To this the court orally remarked, "Because counsel created ruckus. You have not behaved like an officer of the court....We are not interrupting you. You have a habit of interjecting again and again. I have told you not once but several times that dont interject like this. But you keep giving your running commentary". 

When Ruprah submitted that he may not be removed from senior designation, the court orally said, "We have not removed you. We have referred it to full court to consider whether it is fit or not". 

The matter is next listed on April 9. 

Background

Through the present case, the petitioner had sought direction to the respondents to release the payment of the inventory. According to the plea, the petitioner was a license holder for retail sale of liquor for the year 2023-2024. The license of the petitioner expired on March 31, 2024 and he was left with liquor amounting to Rs. 1,52,84,987/- which was left for sale at the time of handing over the liquor shop to the respondents. After the auction process, Respondent No. 5 was granted license for sale of retail liquor. The balance Iiquor was handed over to the excise department which was further handed over to the incoming new licensee i.e. respondent no. 5.

Thereafter, a Panchnama was prepared by the officer of the excise department and after the preparation of Panchama, the leftover stock was handed over to the excise department who in turn handed over the stock inventory to Respondent No. 5.

The total liquor which was handed over to the exercise department by the petitioner amounted to Rs. 1,52,84,987/-. Thereafter, the petitioner repeatedly approached the respondent department for releasing the amount of the inventory in accordance with the panchnama dated 31.03.2024 and has submitted representation. However, no reply was given by the respondents.

The plea contends that the petitioner is entitled to receive the amount along with interest.

Case title: M/s Maa Narmada Associates v/s State of Madhya Pradesh and Others

Click Here To Read/Download Order