Nagpur: The Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court on Monday refused to accept an application seeking the recusal of one of its judges from a contempt case, observing that the allegations levelled against him appeared to be an “afterthought” aimed at avoiding the bench.A division bench was hearing a contempt petition arising from a 2019 case filed by Pranali Ravindra Puttewar against Union of India and others.The issue arose after the contemnor submitted an application to Chief Justice of Bombay High Court and the administrative judge of Nagpur bench seeking the judge’s recusal. The administrative judge closed the application, but a copy was placed on the court record.The contemnor, who was present in court, tendered a physical copy of the application, which the bench marked for identification. When asked whether he stood by the allegations, the contemnor answered in the affirmative.The contemnor, who runs a credit cooperative society, claimed that the judge had been the society’s member since 2003. The judge obtained loans from the society, including a two-wheeler loan and a ₹9 lakh housing loan, both of which had subsequently been repaid, the contemnor said. He alleged that a dispute or exchange of words had taken place while settling the accounts and that the relationship had remained strained thereafter.He also alleged that the judge had ordered a CBI investigation into the affairs of the society, an order that was later challenged before Supreme Court, which modified it and constituted a Special Investigation Team.The bench, however, sought documentary and sworn material before considering these allegations. It directed the contemnor to disclose the cases in which the judge had appeared for or represented the society, produce documents showing closure of the loan accounts and file an affidavit detailing the alleged dispute, including when it occurred and the nature of the exchange.The bench also rejected the contemnor’s claim that a matter had continued before a bench having the same judge to whom he was objecting. The court noted that when the matter was listed on June 11, 2026, no effective hearing took place as counsel sought an adjournment.The court noted that the contemnor’s recusal application was not before the bench at that time and concluded there was “absolutely no substance” in the allegation that the matter had continued at the judge’s insistence.The bench further observed that the contemnor had not disclosed the alleged 2007-08 dispute when the case first came before the bench on Feb 23, 2026, or in earlier proceedings involving the society. “The allegations are apparently made as an afterthought,” it observed.Calling the attempt to avoid a bench having the said judge an effort that should be stopped at its inception, the court granted the contemnor one week to file the required documents and affidavit. HC also clarified that if the contemnor wishes to appear personally, he must follow the procedure prescribed under Bombay HC Appellate Side Rules, 1960. He may alternatively engage a lawyer of his choice.
