Bombay High Court refuses to entertain post-hearing representations alleging counsel did not argue properly

KanoonHQ Legal Gazette · AI-generated brief from the source linked below. How briefs are made

Published 26 October 2026

Case: Not stated in source
Court: Bombay High Court
Bench: Not stated in source
Citation: Not stated in source
Source: Verdictum

Bottom Line Up Front (BLUF)

The Bombay High Court held that post-hearing representations to the Chief Justice, alleging counsel's improper arguments, cannot be countenanced. The Court set aside a School Tribunal order that had reinstated a dismissed peon, noting the representations were a "further attempt to invoke sympathy" but possibly born of frustration.

Ratio Decidendi · Legal Principle Established

Post-hearing representations made directly to the Chief Justice, alleging inadequate arguments by counsel, are an improper attempt to invoke sympathy and cannot be entertained by the court.

Practice & Procedural Impact for Advocates

Advocates should advise clients against making direct representations to the Chief Justice or court after a hearing, especially if dissatisfied with counsel's performance, as such actions are improper and will not be entertained. Litigants must address concerns about counsel's performance through established legal channels, not by direct appeals to the court.

Key Legal Takeaways

1Direct post-hearing representations to the Chief Justice are improper.
2Allegations of counsel's improper arguments must be raised through appropriate legal procedures.
3Such representations are viewed as attempts to invoke sympathy and will be rejected.

The Legal Issue This case involved a litigant who, after the conclusion of arguments in a matter before the Bombay High Court, sent representations directly to the Chief Justice. These representations alleged that their counsel had not argued the case properly. The High Court was tasked with determining the propriety and entertainability of such post-hearing communications.

Court's Reasoning The Bombay High Court found that the representations made to the Chief Justice were an improper attempt to influence the outcome of the case after arguments had concluded. The Court stated that such actions "cannot be countenanced" and characterized them as a "further attempt to invoke sympathy." While acknowledging that the litigant's conduct might have stemmed from frustration, the Court firmly rejected the notion that such direct appeals could be entertained. Concurrently, the Court set aside an order from the School Tribunal that had reinstated a dismissed peon, indicating that the merits of the original case were also considered.

What Follows The Bombay High Court's decision means that the litigant's representations to the Chief Justice were disregarded. The School Tribunal's order reinstating the dismissed peon was set aside, implying a reversal of the peon's reinstatement. The ruling reinforces that judicial proceedings must follow established procedures, and attempts to circumvent these procedures through direct appeals to the court after a hearing will not be entertained.