ORDER : A.S. SUPEHIA, J. 1. Gujarat Operational Creditors Association, acting through its Duly Authorized Manager, Ms.Priti Chaudhary filed Misc. Civil Application (For Contempt) No.2559 of 2024 seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against Arcelor Mittal Nippon Steel India Ltd. and its Director and other personnel and also against the learned advocates representing them. Vide order dated 04.02.2025, we rejected the contempt application with exemplary costs. The prolonged verbal calisthenic of learned advocate Mr.Khosla, while conducting the said application and the averments made in the application, appear to be scornful. We may first incorporate the averments made in the aforesaid application: - “13. Thereafter, when item 1 was called up, after waiting for around 2-3 minutes for the parties to start their arguments, the moment counsel for the Respondent No. 4 (who is the Petitioner herein) commenced to address the Hon'ble Court, the Hon'ble Court's predecessor Judge directed him not to open his papers, as it would not be hearing the matter. The Hon'ble Court's predecessor Judge then proceeded to pass an order to the effect that the matter shall not be before her Court. At that juncture, Ld. senior advocate (Mr. Mihir Joshi) attempted to convince the Hon'ble Court's predecessor Judge that merely because a senior advocate had appeared in a particular matter on a particular day (in this case, Ld. Advocate General, senior advocate Mr Kamal Trivedi) ought not to be reason for the Hon'ble Court to recuse from hearing the matter if such senior advocate no longer continued to appear in that particular matter. In this argument, he was supported by counsel for the Petitioner herein, but who attempted to highlight that what was relevant was not only the earlier appearance of the aforementioned senior advocate, but the fact that the Petitioner then had deliberately suppressed this very vital and material fact from this Hon'ble Court on 08-08-2024 (whether for reasons set out in para 112 below, or otherwise, the Petitioner refuses to speculate), no doubt, in order to influence its decision to continue to hear the matter (rather, precluded from deciding as to whether or not it ought to hear the matter). However, this Hon'ble Court's predecessor Judge preferred not to enter into this particular controversy, and held that the matter would not be before her Court. At that juncture, Ld. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner (Mr. However, this Hon'ble Court's predecessor Judge preferred not to enter into this particular controversy, and held that the matter would not be before her Court. At that juncture, Ld. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner (Mr. Brijesh Trivedi) enquired if 'not before this Court would also apply also to item 36 of the day, and this Hon'ble Court's predecessor Judge was pleased to confirm that it would. At that juncture, advocate Brijesh Trivedi requested that the order dated 08-08- 2024 be recalled, but without the Petitioner therein (in whose favour the ex parte stay had been granted on 08-08-2024), requesting for any further protection, the Hon'ble Court's predecessor Judge was pleased to add another line in its order to the effect that the interim relief granted by her Court by its order dated 08-08-2024 would continue till the matters are listed before another Court. At this juncture, counsel for the Petitioner (advocate Deepak Khosla) protested, submitting that instead of directing that the stay would subsist till the matter is listed before another Court, instructions be issued to the Registry to obtain re-assignment instructions from Hon'ble the Chief Justice during the lunch recess so that the matter can be heard by the successor Bench after lunch, but the Hon'ble Court's predecessor Judge was pleased to cut short his protest, on the grounds that once 'not before this Court' had been pronounced, it would not be open to the counsels to say anything further, thereby contradicting herself, because she herself, after having announced 'not before this Court', she had, herself, passed a supplementary order, directing the stay would subsist till the matter was listed before the successor Bench. On this note, the hearing ended, as this Hon'ble Court called out the next matter. 49. xxxxx....Since the matter was not listed on board that day, the Ld. single judge, in order to maintain standards of Judicial propriety related to even handedness and the Rules of procedure, ought not to have encouraged these Ld. senior counsels anymore, and, instead, should chastises them for mentioning a matter not on the Cause List. Instead, he asked them whether they had brought a copy. In other words, by his request, the Ld. single judge encouraged these counsels to come forward and complain to him even in relation to a matter not in the Cause List of the day. Instead, he asked them whether they had brought a copy. In other words, by his request, the Ld. single judge encouraged these counsels to come forward and complain to him even in relation to a matter not in the Cause List of the day. Senior advocate Mihir Joshi had some electronic gadget (probably an iPad), which he handed over to the Ld. single judge, and whose contents then engaged the Ld. single judge for around 10-12 minutes (all verifiable from the YouTube Video). The following is an extract of the transcript prepared for the hearing held that day, which shows the abusive manner in which these counsels had acted on 08.10.2024. 51. So intimidating and terrorizing was the effect of Ld. senior counsels (Mr. Mihir Joshi and Mr. Mihir Thakore) complaining to the Ld. single judge on 08-10- 2024 across the Bar, and that, too, with brazen falsehoods (falsely complaining that the counsels were being attacked, even though this was not the case) that the executant of the application, one Mr. Kamlesh Luhar, refused to allow the application to be processed and listed, eventually withdrawing the same on evening of 08-10-2024. Subsequently, he has resigned from service, as he refused to be part of any application to be filed of any nature before the learned Single Judge. 55. However, the updated legal position that was not duly appreciated by the Ld. single judge on that day with all due respect, at least in terms of the outward appearance of how the hearing went on that, and subsequent days (07-10-2024, 08-10-2024), when judged by the standards of reason of any average person observing the High Court's proceedings on the YouTube video is that when it comes to exercise of power in writ jurisdiction, the 'self-imposed' nature of the restraints, originally, was very fairly placed by Hon'ble High Court Judges upon themselves in the 1950s or so (when the Constitution was first brought into force), hence, the self- imposed restraints. However, the need for 'self-imposed restraints' is no longer required, as it has been taken over (or replaced) by restraints imposed on the exercise of such assumed-to- be-unfettered writ power by the High Courts by the dicta of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which dicta binds the Hon'ble High Courts by virtue of Article 141 of the Constutition of India, especially when read with the Oath of Office sworn to by every Hon’ble High Court Judge. 57. In other words, in India, there is no authority, institution or body which has even any basis, much less statutory right, to lay claim to being an imperium in imperio. Not even the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. 58. The framers of the Constitution specifically envisaged that even the Hon'ble Supreme Court could not act, much less would act, as an imperium in imperio, though that is, in effect, what is being sought offered purely as an example - by the petitioner in SCA No. 11679 of 2024 that the Hon'ble Court of the Ld. single judge don precisely such hat, seeking that Hon'ble Court to trammel all established fundamental, statutory, contractual and equitable rights, contrary to all settled procedures and canons of law, not only in the procedural-law arena, but also in the arena of substantive law, simply in the name of going forward suo motu. 77. It is settled law that, in India, a Judge is no ‘knight errant’ pursuing adventures which, when viewed by him by his own personal Code, are of personal interest to him. 92. The transcript of SCA No.11679 of 2024 reveals that some manner that is somewhat similar to a 'knight errant' referred to by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various judgements, the Ld. 92. The transcript of SCA No.11679 of 2024 reveals that some manner that is somewhat similar to a 'knight errant' referred to by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various judgements, the Ld. single judge adjudicating SCA No. 11679 2024, for reasons best known to himself, has taken it upon his own shoulders to take action on the email dated 08-01-2024 addressed by counsel for the Petitioner to Head of Office (NCLT-Ahmedabad) despite the fact that Hon'ble NCLAT, as well as Hon'ble NCLT as well as the Hon'ble Delhi High Court have not deemed it fit that any action is warranted on the aforesaid email, as it was not a 'private communication' of any kind, but was transmitted in exercise of his right of counsel under Rule 1 of the Bar Council Rules, and, moreover, was drafted and sent on the express request / direction of Head of Office, NCLT (Ahmedabad). 93. Yet, the Ld. single judge, proceeding on the premise that there are no fetters on his powers, has repeatedly said in open Court that he is indifferent to whether, and why, Hon'ble NCLAT and Hon'ble NCLT and Hon'ble Delhi High Court have not taken action, but he most certainly will take action. 94. It may be borne in mind that this is the same Ld. single judge who has many matters on his board for the day, but which Cannot be adjudicated for want of time. 95. Yet, The has spent, from 30-09-2024 to 21-10-2024, around 10 hours of precious Judicial time adjudicating SCA No. 11679 2024 predominantly on the question of the email dated 08-01- 2024, when he couldn't dispose of around 60-100 matters in the same fime period. 97. Any person of average reason may be forgiven for drawing an inference from the following extract of the transcript of the hearing held on 08-10-2024 that the Ld. single judge perhaps has some interest in taking action against the counsel for the Petitioner from material outside, or not immediately visible / discernible to the general members of the public from, the judicial record before him (be that as it may): 114. PRIVATE COMMUNICATIONS: From the transcript of the hearing of SCA No. 11679 of 2024 held on 08-08- 2024 (which was before a different Id. PRIVATE COMMUNICATIONS: From the transcript of the hearing of SCA No. 11679 of 2024 held on 08-08- 2024 (which was before a different Id. Single Judge, who subsequently recused from hearing the matter on 02-09-2024, but then, after her recusal being pronounced in open court on 02-09-2024, also extended her own ex parte stay granted on 08-08-2024, even though she had already adopted the stand that in her view, she stood disqualified to impartially adjudicate the matter any further) any person not acquainted with the facts of the case and the individuals involved may be forgiven for jumping to the (hopefully-erroneous) conclusion that there has been some sort of 'private communication between the learned senior counsel arguing the matter (who is reported to enjoy a fairly good professional reputation) and the Hon'ble Judge adjudicating the matter prior to the hearing and/or outside the court. This error of inference could arise from the following words exchanged between them on 08-08-2024 (be that as it may): 02:30:06 HON'BLE JUDGE: Yes. So outside the court, you said. when you say that few facts...... 02:30:09 Sr. Adv. Mihir Thakore: Well, I think it should be over in five minutes. I don't think it'll. Now Your Lordship, would... 02:30:13 HON'BLE JUDGE: This is the recall of the? 115. That this exchange between the Ld. single judge and Ld. senior counsel can be very easily verified by this Hon'ble Court from verifying the YouTube video of the hearing of SCA No. 11679 of 2024 held on 08-08- 2024, this practice of reviewing YouTube videos of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat having been resorted to by no less than the Hon'ble Supreme Court while adjudicating a case coming before it from the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat, in the case of Ratilal Jhaveribhai Parmar & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 11000 of 2024 decided on 21-10-2024).” 2. On the premise of the aforementioned averments, learned advocate Mr.Khosla has made his oral submissions.It is submitted by him that learned Single Judge (Hon’ble Ms.Justice Sangeeta K. Vishen), contacted the learned counsel outside the Court and told few facts and the same can be verified from the YouTube and he is not the wrong-doer but the learned counsel, who has private communication with the learned Judge, is a wrong-doer and it is not an offence to point wrong-doing of a Court. While referring to the contents of paragraph No.97, it was submitted that the learned Single Judge perhaps has some interest in taking action against the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner from material outside, or not immediately visible / discernible to the general members of the public. He has commented upon listing of the matter before Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nikhil S. Kariel and also referred to the email sent by him and the matter conducted by Justice Kariel quorum non judice. While reading the order dated 30.09.2024 (of Justice Kariel), he has submitted that the learned senior counsel Mr.Joshi, has been raising fingers against him before the Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nikhil S. Kariel and he is battling the stalwart of the Gujarat Bar and hence, they are targeting him and not his client and want him to be held up for the criminal contempt and he is ready to face it, if it is in accordance with law. He has further asserted that he knows that the moment, he points out finger to names like learned senior advocate Mr.Mihir Thakore and learned senior advocate Mr.Mihir Joshi, he is in very big trouble, even before he opens his mouth and he is going to do so, as this is not the way to practice advocacy. He has further submitted that Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nikhil S. Kariel should not have passed the order dated 30.09.2024, as it was coram non judice and even if he likes or does not likes (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nikhil S. Kariel) does not matter. He has further submitted that Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nikhil S. Kariel does not make the law, as it has been settled by the Supreme Court. He has also cast aspersion of taking suo motu action by Justice Kariel while referring to the billing of Rs.25,00,000/- of the learned senior counsels. Reference is also made by him to the criminal contempt of Bench of Hon’ble Mr.Justice Biren Vaishnav and Hon’ble Ms. Justice Nisha M. Thakore, which was dismissed with cost of Rs.50,000/-. He has also referred to the castigation of some learned Senior Judges of the High Court of Gujarat, sitting in the Division Bench by the Supreme Court for the conduct of backdating the order. It is submitted that the learned Judges are not above the law and refers the judges’ mind are being poisoned against the petitioner. He has also referred to the castigation of some learned Senior Judges of the High Court of Gujarat, sitting in the Division Bench by the Supreme Court for the conduct of backdating the order. It is submitted that the learned Judges are not above the law and refers the judges’ mind are being poisoned against the petitioner. He mentions about the lip service treatment given by the learned Single Judges to the judgments cited by him. He has further referred to the transcripts of hearing before Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nikhil S. Kariel and has submitted that enormous judicial time has been wasted. Detailed submissions are made on suo moto exercise of jurisdiction in our country, which is based on adverserial principle and he has further submitted that specially very big lawyers, very powerful and well connected, experienced and having good reputation, can sway the Court to take suo moto action and hence, he wants High Court of Gujarat to lay down some Rules, so on what case, the judge can take suo moto action in a country, where justice is dispensed by adverserial principle. 3. The cited passages indicate very scant regard to the functioning of this Institution. Mr.Khosla has attempted to justify his misplaced gut feeling by making a scavenger hunt through the transcripts and by placing reliance on stray dialogues for instigating this Court as to how the case should come out in his favour. While making submissions on the extension of ad-interim relief, ad hominem attack is made on the learned Single Judges by him impinging the dignity and the majesty of this Institution. Such unwarranted remarks places the Gujarat High Court in unfavorable light. His hyperbolic exuberance to face the contempt proceedings have, yet again landed him in the same arena. We may remind ourselves to the observations of Lord Denning, M.R.observed in Sirros vs. Moore [ Sirros v. Moore , 1975 QB 118 : (1974) 3 WLR 459 (CA)] : (QB p. 136) “ … Every Judge of the courts of this land — from the highest to the lowest — should be protected to the same degree, and liable to the same degree. If the reason underlying this immunity is to ensure ‘that they may be free in thought and independent in judgment’, it applies to every Judge, whatever his rank. Each should be protected from liability to damages when he is acting judicially. If the reason underlying this immunity is to ensure ‘that they may be free in thought and independent in judgment’, it applies to every Judge, whatever his rank. Each should be protected from liability to damages when he is acting judicially. Each should be able to do his work in complete independence and free from fear. He should not have to turn the pages of his books with trembling fingers, asking himself:‘If I do this, shall I be liable in damages?’ So long as he does his work in the honest belief that it is within his jurisdiction, then he is not liable to an action. He may be mistaken in fact. He may be ignorant in law. What he does may be outside his jurisdiction — in fact or in law — but so long as he honestly believes it to be within his jurisdiction, he should not be liable. Once he honestly entertains this belief nothing else will make him liable. He is not to be plagued with allegations of malice or ill will or bias or anything of the kind. Actions based on such allegations have been struck out and will continue to be struck out. Nothing will make him liable except it to be shown that he was not acting judicially, knowing that he had no jurisdiction to do it.” 4. It is not for the first time that the contumacious conduct of learned advocate Mr.Khosla is noticed by the courts of law. The High Court of Delhi has taken cognizance of such conduct of learned advocate Mr.Khosla, and he was also punished for committing contempt of Court, and he is also prohibited from personally appearing and addressing any matter in the Delhi High Court. In the judgment dated 13.01.2015, the Delhi High Court passed in Cont. CAS (C) No.165 of 2008, he was asked to introspect over his conduct and to learn to respect the court and the system of administration of justice and to mend his behaviour and attitude towards the courts and the Judicial Offcers. The Supreme Court has also initiated suo motu motion against him for committing contumacious conduct and the same is pending. Despite, the aforesaid proceedings and the orders reprimanding him, his belligerent conduct continues, and he appears to be inexorable. The Coordinate Bench has also imposed cost of Rs.50,000/- for filing frivolous Criminal Misc. The Supreme Court has also initiated suo motu motion against him for committing contumacious conduct and the same is pending. Despite, the aforesaid proceedings and the orders reprimanding him, his belligerent conduct continues, and he appears to be inexorable. The Coordinate Bench has also imposed cost of Rs.50,000/- for filing frivolous Criminal Misc. Application (for Contempt of Court) No.21836 of 2023, vide order dated 23.01.2023. 5. At this juncture, we may refer to the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Rachapudi Subba Rao vs. Advocate General, Andhra Pradesh , 1981 (2) S.C.C. 577 : “17. In the instant case, the contempt committed, though not in connection with any pending proceeding, primarily and, squarely falls under sub-clause (i) though the aforesaid residuary phrase in sub-clause (iii) may also be attracted. Unfounded imputation of mala fides, bias, prejudice or ridiculing the performance of a Judge or casting aspersions on his integrity - as has been done by the appellant in the notice in question - are always considered to mean scandalising the Court, and lowering the authority of his court by bringing him and his office into disrespect and disrepute. Vilification of the Judge, even in administrative matters or decided judicial matters, may amount to "criminal contempt" under sub- clause (i) of Sec. 2 (c) as it lowers or tends to lower the authority or dignity of the Court by undermining public confidence in the capacity of the Judge to mete out even-handed and impartial justice.” 6. We are of the opinion that the aforementioned averments in the application and the demeanor of learned advocate Mr.Khosla qualifies the definition of section 2(c), which defines “criminal contempt” of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and also under Article 215 of the Constitution of India. The duly authorized Manager, Ms.Priti Chaudhry, who has sworn the affidavit and has declared that facts and contents of the application as true to her knowledge and belief is also accountable for committing contempt of court. The duly authorized Manager, Ms.Priti Chaudhry, who has sworn the affidavit and has declared that facts and contents of the application as true to her knowledge and belief is also accountable for committing contempt of court. Hence, we direct the Office to register Suo Motu contempt proceedings under Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for the purpose of record against learned advocate Mr.Deepak Khosla, D-367, 3 rd Floor, Defence Colony, New Delhi-110024 and Ms.Priti Chaudhry, the duly authorized Manager of the applicant- Association having its office at B-10, Sarita Darshan Society, Behind City Gold Cinema, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380009. 7. We, therefore issue NOTICE to Mr.Deepak Khosla, learned advocate, and Ms.Priti Chaudhry calling upon them as to why any action for committing contempt of Court should not be taken against them. 8. The matter shall be listed on 27.02.2025