AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
15 paragraphs · 394 wordsS.K. Sahoo, J
I.A. No. 47 of 2023
This matter is taken up through Hybrid arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode).
In pursuance of the order dated 11.05.2023, Mr. Suryakanta Sahoo, Advocate’s Clerk is present and he has filed his show cause wherein he has mentioned as follows:
“3. That after receiving the notice on verifying the case details from the official web site of Orissa High Court, I came to know that the case is a JCRLA and Advocate learned Satyajit Makharjee has appeared for the appellant. Subsequently upon inspection of the case record, I have found that my signature has been forged in the affidavit as deponent in I.A. No.47 of 2023.
That I may bring to your kind notice that though Advocate Mr. Mukherjee is known to me but I have not sweared any affidavit before any swearing authority in above mentioned interim application no.47 of 2023 and I have not been engaged to look after the case/ to be charge as Advocate’s Clerk by neither Advocate Mr. Mukherjee or the party nor his keen. The signature appearing on the affidavit is not my signature and the same has been forged.
That I have no idea whatsoever regarding the documents as referred in the notice. I have no personal acquaintance with the party or his keen in any manner whatsoever.
That the contents of the notice regarding my complicity is not correct, the contempt proceeding if proceeded without due verification of my signature and without proper ascertainment of my innocence will cause irreparable and substantial damage to me.”
The Interim Application was shown to the Advocate’s clerk and he denies his signature appearing on the same.
Mr. Satyajit Mukherjee, learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner takes the responsibility and submits that it is his mistake and he will see that in future such things will not recur. He begged unconditional apology for the mistake he committed.
Considering the submission of Mr. Suryakanta Sahoo, the Advocate’s Clerk so also Mr. Mukherjee, learned counsel for the petitioner, the initiation of contempt proceeding is dropped. However, Mr. Mukherjee shall be careful in future.
Since the interim application has been filed with forged medical documents, I am not inclined to grant interim bail to the petitioner.
Accordingly, I.A. stands dismissed.
The personal appearance of Mr. Suryakanta Sahoo, the Advocate’s Clerk is dispensed with.
……………………………..