Nagpur: The Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court on Monday imposed a ₹5 lakh cost on a cooperative society founder after rejecting his plea seeking recusal of Justice Anil Pansare from a contempt case. It held that his allegations of personal prejudice against the judge were unsupported by evidence and appeared to be an attempt to avoid the bench.A division bench comprising Justices Pansare and Nivedita Mehta directed Nirmal Ujwal Credit Cooperative Society founder Pramod Manmode to deposit the cost with HC Legal Services Sub-Committee within two weeks. It also ordered the registry to treat the matter as suo motu criminal contempt and place it before an appropriate bench.The dispute arose in a contempt petition filed over alleged non-compliance with an April 29, 2025, HC judgment. HC directed the society to remove a sub-station, transformer, water treatment plant and other constructions from a 24metre-wide development-plan road within four months. The society had also been ordered to pay ₹5 lakh for its conduct.Manmode sought Justice Pansare’s recusal, alleging the judge had been a member of the society and earlier empanelled as its advocate. He claimed disputes had arisen between them over work assigned to the judge and later over the foreclosure of loans availed from the society. He also alleged Justice Pansare was prejudiced towards the society because of an earlier order directing a CBI inquiry into its affairs.The court noted that Supreme Court had subsequently modified that order and constituted a three-member special investigation team to probe into the matter.The judges said Manmode failed to produce material establishing any personal connection between Justice Pansare and the dispute in the contempt proceedings. They noted he could not provide the time, place or nature of the alleged quarrel during the loan foreclosure, despite being specifically directed to furnish those details.The court added Manmode should have disclosed the alleged dispute when the contempt petition was first heard on Feb 23. It also rejected his allegation that the judge ensured the matter remained before a bench comprising the judge himself.The bench concluded the allegations against Justice Pansare were an attempt to secure his recusal. “The attempt is to malign the judge with a view to get a favourable order of recusal,” it said.Referring to SC judgments on criminal contempt and judicial independence, the court said litigants could not be permitted to intimidate or malign judges to obtain orders of their choice. It cited the settled principle that attempts to browbeat a court or engage in “forum shopping” must not be allowed to undermine the administration of justice.The bench also considered Supreme Court’s observation that, as a matter of prudence, a judge personally attacked should ordinarily avoid hearing a contempt matter concerning the attack. It held, however, this was not an absolute rule and the circumstances of the present case did not warrant Justice Pansare’s recusal.
