Rajinder Nagar coaching centre death case: Judge warns advocate, would invoke contempt if he misbehaves
Aug 22, 2024
New Delhi [India], August 22 : The Principal District and Sessions Judge of the Rouse Avenue court on Thursday warned an advocate that she would invoke contempt if he misbehaved in the court.
The advocate is representing the father of a deceased UPSC aspirant who died in the Old Rajender Nagar drowning case.
Principal District and Sessions Judge Anju Bajaj Chandna warned advocate Abhijit Anand not to misbehave in her court or she would invoke contempt of court against him.
He had moved an application seeking a direction for the summoning of a building sanction plan of the basement and third floor of the building where the drowning incident took place on July 27.
His application was marked to ACJM for hearing. But he was insisting that the application should be heard by the District Judge.
The court is scheduled to promote order on the bail applications of four co-owners of the basement.
Advocate Abhijeet Anand is counsel for J Dalvil Suresh, father of deceased Nevin Dalvil.
The court assigned the application to another court. Advocate objected and asked the court to dismiss his application and not refer it to another court.
"It is my right to be heard. I want to make submissions," said the counsel. To this, the court said it has marked the application to another court where related applications are being heard. "I have marked your case, you can go," said the court.
Responding to this, the counsel said, "Kindly dismiss my application." He kept insisting on hearing it.
"Sochna bhi mat ki meri court me badtamizi kr sakte ho (Don't even think you can misbehave in my court). My staff has been telling me you have been misbehaving with them too since this morning," the court said.
The application moved by Anand sought the sanctioned building plan of the basement, and third floor including the drain, and the lease deed of the third floor of the building in which the coaching was being run.
The application stated these documents have a 'direct connection' with the case and are 'very relevant', thus necessary and desirable in the proceeding.
