ITEM NO.119 (MM)

COURT NO.7

SECTION XV

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
CIVIL APPEAL

NOS.

I N D I A

7416-7418/2012

SMT. YOGESHWARI KUMARI AND ORS.

APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS

LAKE SHORE PALACE HOTELS PVT. LTD. & ORS
RESPONDENT(S)
(WITH APPLN. (S) FOR DIRECTIONS AND DIRECTIONS AND IMPLEADMENT AND
DIRECTIONS AND OFFICE REPORT)
WITH
C.A. NO. 7419-7424/2012
(WITH OFFICE REPORT)
Date : 18/02/2016 These appeals were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAFULLA C. PANT
For Appellant(s)

Mr. Mrinal Kanti Mandal, Adv.
For Mr. Parijat Sinha, Adv.

For Respondent(s)
Mr. Anil Kumar Mishra, Adv.
Mr. E. C. Agrawala, Adv.
Mr. Puneet Jain, Adv.
Ms. Pratibha Jain, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Before rising of the Court Shri Mrinal Kanti Mandal,
learned

counsel

appearing

for

the

appellants

sought

to

mention the present appeals listed at Item No.119 of the
Cause List though at the end of the day the Court could
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Vinod Lakhina
Date: 2016.02.19
17:22:42 IST
Reason:

reach

only

upto

Item

No.110

of

the

list.

Shri

Mandal

Page No.1 of 2

 persisted to his attempts to mention and with reference

to

certain photographs pointed out that this Bench should not
hear the matter.

We have perused the photographs wherein

one member of this Bench (Ranjan Gogoi, J.) along with his
family had visited City Palace Museum, Udaipur which is a
center

of

tourist

attraction.

We

do

not

see

why

the

learned counsel should have pointed the said fact inasmuch
as upon reading of the case record when the matter would
have

been

called

out

in

the

normal

course

the

learned

judge, if he feels any incapacity or inconvenience to deal
with the matter would have recused himself. The submission
made

by

the

learned

counsel

proceeds

on

certain

presumptions that the learned judge who visited City Palace
Museum, Udaipur was aware or made aware subsequently of the
pending litigation; that the litigation is pending in his
Court; and that the learned judge had been spoken to by the
opposite
learned

party

(the

member(s)

of

respondents).
the

Bar

cannot

The
be

conduct

of

the

appreciated.

I

(Ranjan Gogoi, J), therefore, refer the matter to the Bar
Council of Delhi and the Bar Council of India for taking up
appropriate action in respect of the above conduct of Shri
Mrinal Kanti Mandal.

[VINOD LAKHINA]
COURT MASTER

[ASHA SONI]
COURT MASTER

Page No.2 of 2