The New Nawabs : India Today's Feature

Source : India Today

When Ratan Tata moved the Supreme Court, claiming his right to privacy had been violated, he called Harish Salve. The choice was not surprising. The former solicitor general has been topping the legal charts ever since he scripted a surprising win for Mukesh Ambani against his brother Anil. That dispute set the gold standard for legal fees. On Mukesh's side were Salve, Rohinton Nariman and Abhishek Manu Singhvi. The younger brother had an equally formidable line-up led by Ram Jethmalani and Mukul Rohatgi.

The lawyers' fees alone, at a conservative estimate, cost the Ambani brothers at least Rs 15 crore each in their famous war over natural gas.

The dispute dated back three-and-a-half years to when Anil filed a case against his brother for reneging on an agreement to supply 28 million cubic metres of gas per day from its Krishna-Godavari basin fields at a rate of $2.34 for 17 years. The average legal fee was Rs 25 lakh for a full day's appearance, not to mention the overnight stays at Mumbai's five-star suites, business class travel, and on occasion, use of the private jet. Little wonder though that Salve agreed to take on Tata's case pro bono. He could afford philanthropy with one of India's wealthiest tycoons.

Welcome to the world of new nawabs. The lawyers' fees alone, at a conservative estimate, must have cost the Ambanis at least Rs 15 crore each. Both the brothers had booked their legal teams in the same hotel, first the Oberoi and, after the 26/11 Mumbai attacks, the Trident. "Well, if you're going to write all this, then you can also add that Mukesh bought me a pair of pyjamas as well," laughs Salve, recalling how he was called to Mumbai suddenly from Orissa where he had gone for a day's hearing. "I told Mukesh I had packed nothing. He insisted on buying me the essentials."

It's not the essentials as much as the frills that raise eyebrows. The veteran Jethmalani is surprisingly the most modest in his fees since he does not charge rates according to the strength of the client's purse. But as the crises have multiplied, lawyers' fees have exploded. The 50 court hearings in the Haldia Petrochemicals vs the West Bengal Government cost the former a total of Rs 25 crore in lawyer fees and the 20 hearings in the Bombay Mill Case, which dragged on for three years, cost the mill owners almost Rs 10 crore. Large corporate firms, which engage star counsels on behalf of the client, also need to know their quirks. For instance, Salve will only accept the first brief. He will never be the second counsel in a case. Some lawyers prefer to be paid partly in cash but the best are content with cheques. Some expect the client not to blink while picking up a dinner tab of Rs 1.75 lakh at a Chennai five star. A lawyer is known to carry his home linen and curtains with him while travelling on work. A firm may even have to pick up a hot Vertu phone of the moment or a Jaeger-LeCoutre watch of the hour to keep a lawyer in good humour.

Some are even paid to not appear at all for the other side - Aryama Sundaram was retained by Anil Ambani in the gas feud but he did not fight the case. Or take Raytheon when it was fighting the Jindals. Raytheon had paid seven top lawyers a retainer fee of Rs 2.5 lakh each just to ensure that the Jindals would not be able to make a proper case on a taxation issue. They miscalculated when a star lawyer fought the case at the last minute. "I don't take negative retainers," shrugs Rohatgi, former additional solicitor general. "A lawyer's job is to appear for any client that comes to him. It's not for the lawyers to judge if a client is good or bad but the court." Indeed. He is, after all, the lawyer who argued so famously in court that B. Ramalinga Raju did not fudge any account in the Satyam Case. All he did was "window dressing".

Some high profile cases have continued for years, providing a steady source of income, from the Scindia succession battle which dates to 1989, to the JetLite Sahara battle now in taxation arbitration to the BCCI which is currently in litigation with Lalit Modi, Rajasthan Royals and Kings XI Punjab.

Think of the large law firms as the big Hollywood studios and the senior counsel as the superstar. There are a few familiar faces to be found in most of the big ticket cases, whether it is the Ambani gas case, Vodafone taxation or Bombay Mills case. Explains Salve, "There is a reason why we have more than one senior advocate on a case. When you're arguing, he's reading the court. He picks up a point or a vibe that you may have missed." Says Raian Karanjawala whose firm has prepared the briefs for cases ranging from the Tata's recent right to privacy case to Karisma Kapoor's divorce, "The four jewels in the crown today are Salve, Rohatgi, Rohinton Nariman and Singhvi. They have replaced the old guard of Fali Nariman, Soli Sorabjee, Ashok Desai and K.K. Venugopal." He adds, "The one person who defies the generational gap is Jethmalani who was India's leading criminal lawyer in the 1960s and is so today."

The demand for superstar lawyers has far outstripped the supply. So a one-man show by, say, Rohatgi can run up billings of Rs 40 crore, the same as a mid-sized corporate law firm like Titus and Co that employs 28 juniors. The big law firms such as AZB or Amarchand & Mangaldas or Luthra & Luthra have to do all the groundwork for the counsel, from humouring the clerk to ensure the A-lister turns up on the hearing day to sourcing appropriate foreign judgments in emerging areas such as environmental and patent laws. "We are partners in this. There are so few lawyers and so many matters," points out Diljeet Titus.

As the trust between individuals has broken down, governments have questioned corporates and corporates are questioning each other, and an array of new issues has come up. And as the government has weakened, the courts have become stronger. The lawyer, says Sundaram, with the flourish that has seen him pick up many Dhurandhares and Senakas at pricey art auctions, has emerged as the modern day purohit.

Each purohit is head priest of a particular style. Says Karanjawala, "Harish is the closest example in today's bar to Fali Nariman; Rohinton has the best law library in his brain; Mukul is easily India's busiest lawyer while Manu Singhvi is the greatest multi-tasker." Salve has managed a fine balancing act where he has represented Mulayam Singh Yadav and Mayawati, Parkash Singh Badal and Amarinder Singh, Lalit Modi and Subhash Chandra and even the Ambani brothers, of course in different cases. Singhvi is Sonia Gandhi's go-to-guy on most legal issues, whether it is citizenship or filing a case against a publication. Jethmalani is the man to call for anyone in trouble. In judicial circles he is known as the first resort for the last resort. Even Jethmalani's junior Satish Maneshinde, who came to Mumbai in 1993 as a penniless law graduate from Karnataka, shot to fame (and wealth) after he got bail for Sanjay Dutt in 1996. Now he owns a plush office in Worli and has become a one-stop shop for celebrities in trouble, from getting bail for Rakhi Sawant when a youth committed suicide after she called him namard (impotent) to representing Salman Khan in a drunken driving case.

With wealth come perks. In 1992, Karanjawala and Desai were chatting in the Supreme Court car park when former law minister Ashoke Sen zipped by in his Fiat. "What Ashoke, small car?" asked Desai to which Sen replied, "In Bangla we have a saying: known Brahmins need not wear the sacred thread." Now the car park is filled with Bentleys, Mercedes and at the very least, an upmarket Toyota. The symbols of success include a holiday home in Goa, Souzas on the office walls, shopping expeditions to Bond Street (where they can expect to bump into other lawyers). As Salve says, "Only Brioni and Canali make boring suits for lawyers, the blacks and dark greys." Also the pens, the watches, and in Arun Jaitley and Rohatgi's case, the jamewars. Then there is the public profile, amplified by talking head status on tv channels every other night.

Most of the prized lawyers such as Salve, Jethmalani, Sundaram and Rohatgi do some pro bono work as well, if the cause is right. But in all this, the pil bar has come crashing down, upheld only by men such as Rajeev Dhavan and Prashant Bhushan. "I subsidise my pil work by taking on commercial cases, which I needed when I had to send my daughters to study in the US," says Dhavan. In many cases, it's the take-off point for a job in the government like Indira Jaising's work with Mumbai's homeless pavement dwellers which has got her the additional solicitor general's job. As Dhavan notes, the dense gravity of private marketing lawyering has created black holes in activist lawyering.

Says an angry Sorabjee, "To charge Rs 30 to 40 lakh per day is nothing short of extortion. It is no excuse to say that the client can afford it. Lawyers are professionals, not tradesmen in a market place. I get mad if a client says fees are no question. You think you can buy me? You can charge heavy fees but not extortionist fees." The octogenarian constitutional expert charges Rs 2 lakh per appearance as opposed to the going rate of Rs 2.5 lakh to Rs 5 lakh charged by younger lawyers. Sometimes, if the court breaks for lunch at 1 p.m. and the matter has come up for hearing at 12.45, the lawyer even bills the client for two separate appearances.

In Mumbai, for instance, veteran criminal lawyer Majid Memon charges Rs 2 lakh simply for securing bail in a sessions court. There are those who recall him coming to the tada court in 1996 on an old scooter. He now drives a Mercedes. In Chennai, Arvind Datar charges anything between Rs 50,000 and Rs 5 lakh per appearance.

As for the chartered flights, they all claim that this is a necessity rather than a privilege. "The advocates come to us with that offer (of chartered flights). It's not flaunting of power but the idea is to return the same day from a badly connected destination, says Singhvi, putting on his most earnest expression. Rohatgi complains of being claustrophobic on small planes. "During peak hours, chartered flights don't get preference over commercial," he adds with the jaded fatigue of a seasonal traveller.

There is a reason for this exorbitant fee structure. In recent years, the stakes in corporate litigation have hit the roof, as in the Rs 12,000-crore Vodafone vs the Income Tax department case. Moreover, the legal fraternity argues that when clients don't mind paying investment bankers fees worth millions of dollars, then why are only lawyers coming up for censure? The fate of several crucial corporate battles hangs on the slender thread of which matter is listed before which court and which lawyer would work there. "Why should we earn less than the CEO of a big corporation?" asks Sundaram. Except that this CEO often goes on to become a minister in the government-law as a profession offers immense mobility-and deal with the same organisations he once represented.

Most corporate bosses also have their legal favourites. For instance, Nusli Wadia's favourite lawyer is Fali Nariman who hates "skullduggery"; ITC's was Desai but he has since been replaced by Salve; the late Madhav Rao Scindia's family favours Singhvi. Of course, the Ambani brothers too have their chosen legal soldiers: while Anil's first choice is usually Rohatgi, his brother opts for Salve. As does Ratan Tata. The Birlas go with Sen. Many have created mini-dynasties, whether it is Singhvi, Salve or Rohinton Nariman.

"Sometimes, it's the thrill of the forensic complexity that counts, not winning or losing," says Singhvi. He recalls how during the Ambani gas case, a friend called and asked him, "The stocks are fluctuating wildly. You're the oracle: which way will it go?" Singhvi laughed and said he had no idea. Salve agrees. "Mukesh called me that morning and said we have done our best. The rest is up to God," he recalls. However, Rohatgi who appeared for Anil says, "I had a premonition we would lose. But Anil thought otherwise." Salve adds, "After the judgment, Mukesh was too choked to speak. Nita said they had one more request. I should handle the media. She said, Harish bhai bahut negativity ho gaya. There should be no loose comments." Clearly a lawyer's brief is not just limited to courtrooms.

Ironically, it was during the Battle of the Brothers last year that Salve told the Supreme Court how Mukesh Ambani had told him about the millions of dollars demanded by laptop consultants just to create holding companies, resulting companies and other such complexities. Quick to retort, Rohatgi had quipped, "Is this how Salve justifies his high fees?" Grinning, a sheepish Salve said, "I plead guilty on my behalf and on behalf of my colleagues." But it was Justice R.V. Raveendran who had the last word, "The only difference between Salve and the consultants is the laptop." And perhaps the Bentley, the BMW and the Mercedes.

Harish Salve

Harish Salve, 54

- Landmark case: Won the gas dispute for Mukesh Ambani, though what he enjoys most is being amicus curiae in the Forest Case of T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs Union of India and Others.

- Legal Style: Is a master strategist. Gives a balanced argument rather than an aggressive, one-sided view.

- Fee per appearance: Rs 2.5 lakh to Rs 3 lakh. For a full day, it's Rs 25 lakh.

- The indulgence: Drives a Bentley.

**************************************************

Ram Jethmalani

Ram Jethmalani, 87

- Landmark case: Got the Jain Hawala case against L. K. Advani squashed; is currently defending former Gujarat home minister Amit Shah.

- Legal Style: Argues forcefully. Has an acerbic wit.

- Fee per appearance: Rs 5 lakh.

- The indulgence: Has an indoor badminton court built in his MP bungalow that is the envy of Lutyens' Delhi.

**************************************************

Mukul Rohatgi

Mukul Rohatgi, 55

- Landmark case: Represented Anil Ambani in the gas dispute.

- Legal Style: Is a slogger. Argues aggressively and goes straight to the point.

- Fee per appearance: Rs 2.5 lakh to Rs 3 lakh and Rs 25 lakh for a full day.

- The indulgence: Drives a black Bentley, has Souza on his walls, a holiday home in Goa.

**************************************************

Majid Memon

Majid Memon, 55

- Landmark case: He represented Yakub Memon but could not set him free.

- Legal Style: He argues in the court with his right leg on a chair.

- Fee per day: Rs 10 lakh. Charges Rs 2 lakh for a bail application.

- The indulgence: Likes to travel, makes frequent trips to exotic locations.

**************************************************

Satish Maneshinde

Satish Maneshinde, 50

- Landmark case: He secured bail for Sanjay Dutt in the Bombay blast case and for Salman Khan who allegedly killed one person while driving drunk.

- Legal Style: Argues calmly in court and looks straight into the judge's eyes.

- Fee per day: Rs 10 lakh.

- The indulgence: His Mercedes and a passion for Page 3 parties.

**************************************************

Aryama Sundaram

Aryama Sundaram, 53

- Landmark case: Represented the West Bengal Government against Haldia Petrochemicals and UBS Securities against sebi.

- Legal Style: Persuasive speaker, argues his case in a measured tone.

- Fee per appearance: Rs 3.5 lakh

**************************************************

Arvind Datar

Arvind Datar, 53

- Landmark case: Was one of the lawyers in the Vodafone vs Income Tax case.

- Legal Style: Says one lesson he learnt is to never antagonise a judge. It's not only your bread and butter but your client's life.

- Fee per appearance: Rs 50,000 to Rs 5 lakh.

- The indulgence: His first car was a Toyota Corona in 1990. Now he drives an Audi. Has penned a three-volume commentary on Constitutional law.

**************************************************

Abhishek Manu Singhvi

Abhishek Manu Singhvi, 51

- Landmark case: Won the right to fly the tricolour for Navin Jindal.

- Legal Style: From logical in court to rhetorical flourish in Parliament to snappy sound bites for the media on tv.

- Fee per appearance: Rs 2.5 lakh to Rs 3 lakh. For a full day, it's Rs 25 lakh.

- The indulgence: A limited-edition Visconti pen with a custom-made nib and watches from every luxury brand.

**************************************************

Legal Blog does not claim any copyright in the article. Please buy the latest Issue of India Today to read the entire article.

Doctrine of Lis Pendens & Suggestions to Reduce Property Related Litigation : Supreme Court Explains

Justice Raveendran

The Supreme Court has in T.G. Ashok Kumar vs Govindammal & Anr. examined and explained the Doctrine of Lis Pendens as applicable in India. Speaking for the Bench, Justice R.V. Raveendran has given suggestions to the Law Commission to develop practices which would reduce property related litigation. The Court observed as under:

9. Section 52 dealing with lis pendens is relevant and it is extracted below :

"Transfer of property pending suit relating thereto.--During the pendency in any Court having authority within the limits of India excluding the State of Jammu and Kashmir or established beyond such limits by the Central Government of any suit or proceeding which is not collusive and in which any right of immovable property is directly and specifically in question, the property cannot be transferred or otherwise dealt with by any party to the suit or proceeding so as to affect the rights of any other party thereto under any decree or order which may be made therein, except under the authority of the court and on such terms as it may impose." x x x x x x

In Jayaram Mudaliar v. Ayyaswami (AIR 1973 SC 569) this court held that the purpose of Section 52 of the Act is not to defeat any just and equitable claim, but only to subject them to the authority of the court which is dealing with the property to which claims are put forward. This court in Hardev Singh v. Gurmail Singh (2007) 2 SCC 404 held that Section 52 of the Act does not declare a pendente lite transfer by a party to the suit as void or illegal, but only makes the pendente lite purchaser bound by the decision in the pending litigation.

10. The principle underlying Section 52 is clear. If during the pendency of any suit in a court of competent jurisdiction which is not collusive, in which any right of an immovable property is directly and specifically in question, such property cannot be transferred by any party to the suit so as to affect the rights of any other party to the suit under any decree that may be made in such suit. If ultimately the title of the pendente lite transferor is upheld in regard to the transferred property, the transferee's title will not be affected. On the other hand, if the title of the pendente lite transferor is recognized or accepted only in regard to a part of the transferred property, then the transferee's title will be saved only in regard to that extent and the transfer in regard to the remaining portion of the transferred property to which the transferor is found not entitled, will be invalid and the transferee will not get any right, title or interest in that portion. If the property transferred pendente lite, is allotted in entirely to some other party or parties or if the transferor is held to have no right or title in that property, the transferee will not have any title to the property. Where a co-owner alienates a property or a portion of a property representing to be the absolute owner, equities can no doubt be adjusted while making the division during the final decree proceedings, if feasible and practical (that is without causing loss or hardship or inconvenience to other parties) by allotting the property or portion of the property transferred pendente lite, to the share of the transferor, so that the bonafide transferee's right and title are saved fully or partially.

A related suggestion to the Law makers

13. It is necessary to refer to the hardship, loss, anxiety and unnecessary litigation caused on account of absence of a mechanism for prospective purchasers to verify whether a property is subject to any pending suit or a decree or attachment. At present, a prospective purchaser can easily find out about any existing encumbrance over a property either by inspection of the Registration Registers or by securing a certificate relating to encumbrances (that is copies of entries in the Registration Registers) from the jurisdictional Sub-Registrar under Section 57 of the Registration Act, 1908. But a prospective purchaser has no way of ascertaining whether there is any suit or proceeding pending in respect of the property, if the person offering the property for sale does not disclose it or deliberately suppresses the information. As a result, after parting with the consideration (which is many a time the life time savings), the purchaser gets a shock of his life when he comes to know that the property purchased by him is subject to litigation, and that it may drag on for decades and ultimately deny him title to the property. The pendente lite purchaser will have to wait for the litigation to come to an end or he may have to take over the responsibility of conducting the litigation if the transferor loses interest after the sale. The purchaser may also face objections to his being impleaded as a party to the pending litigation on the ground that being a lis pendens purchaser, he is not a necessary party. All these inconveniences, risks, hardships and misery could be avoided and the property litigations could be reduced to a considerable extent, if there is some satisfactory and reliable method by which a prospective purchaser can ascertain whether any suit is pending (or whether the property is subject to any decree or attachment) before he decides to purchase the property.

14. It is of some interest that a solution has been found to this problem in the States of Maharashtra by an appropriate local amendment to section 52 of the Act, by Bombay Act 4 of 1939. Section 52, as applicable in the Maharashtra and Gujarat, reads thus (the amendment is shown in italics): "52. (1) During the pendency in any court having authority within the limits of India excluding the State of Jammu and Kashmir established beyond such limits by the Central Government, of any suit or proceeding which is not collusive and in which any right to immoveable property is directly and specifically in question, if a notice of the pendency of such suit or proceeding is registered under section 18 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908, the property after the notice is so registered cannot be transferred or otherwise dealt with by any party to the suit or proceeding so as to affect the rights of any other party thereto under any decree or order which may be made therein, except under the authority of the court and on such terms as it may impose.

(2) Every notice of pendency of a suit or proceeding referred to in sub-section (1) shall contain the following particulars, namely:-

(a) the name and address of the owner of immoveable property or other person whose right to the immoveable property in question;

(b) the description of the immoveable property the right to which is in question;

(c) the court in which the suit or proceeding is pending; 

(d) the nature and title of the suit or proceeding; and

(e) the date on which the suit or proceeding was instituted. xxxx xxxx xxxx

We hope that the Law Commission and the Parliament considers such amendment or other suitable amendment to cover the existing void in title verification or due diligence procedures. Provision can also be made for compulsory registration of such notices in respect of decrees and in regard to attachments of immoveable properties.

15. We may also refer to another related area where registration should be made compulsory to reduce property litigation. At present in most of the states, agreements to sell are not compulsorily registrable as they do not involve transfer of any right, title or interest in an immoveable property. Unscrupulous property owners enter into agreements of sale and take huge earnest money deposits/advances, and then sell the property to others thereby plunging the original agreement holder and the subsequent purchaser into litigation. Registration of agreements of sale will reduce such litigation. It will also assist in putting an end to the prevalent practice of entering into agreements of sale showing the real consideration and then registering the sale deed for only a part of the real consideration. If all agreements of sale are compulsorily registered, that will go a long way to discourage generation and circulation of black money in real estate matters, as also undervaluation of documents for purposes of stamp duty. It will also discourage the growth of land mafia and muscleman who dominate the real estate scene in various parts of the country. Prevention of a malaise, is always better than allowing a malaise to develop and then trying to cure it.

Ex-SC Judge to Probe 2G Licences

Justice Patil

Source : The Times of India

One day after the Supreme Court directed the CBI to widen the probe of the 2G spectrum scam, the government on Thursday announced that a retired Supreme Court judge would look into spectrum allocation procedures and policies during 2001-2009, a period that includes the NDA regime. 

IT and communications minister Kapil Sibal said the one-man committee of retired Supreme Court Justice Shivraj V Patil would "examine appropriateness of procedures (adopted) by DoT in the issuances of licences and allocation of spectrum during the period 2001-2009". 

Patil has been tasked with completing within four weeks, the exercise of uncovering the entire gamut of procedures not just on the 122 2G licences/spectrum awarded in 2008 at 2001 prices, but also award of spectrum between 4.4 MHz to 6.2 MHz and beyond. 

''All spectrum given between 2001 and 2009 has been free,'' Sibal said, explaining why the entire period was being investigated. 

Once the government has the inquiry findings with it, a decision would be taken on how to move forward. "(The) objective is to tell people of this country how the spectrum was given and we will put this in the public domain,'' Sibal said. 

Sibal also said show-cause notices would be issued within a week to companies which had got licences despite being ineligible to apply or had not met rollout obligations. 

According to Sibal, the terms of reference for the committee include looking at internal department procedures adopted by the Department of Telecom during 2001 and 2009, including award of Unified Access Service licences/ spectrum, examination of consistencies or deviations in policies including matters of fairness, transparency, and keeping with the principles of justice. ''It will even probe violation of policies enunciated by the DoT itself,'' Sibal said. 

Asked about the objective of such a committee when the CAG has already given its report, Sibal said, "They (CAG) have given the report and the same is being examined by the Parliamentary panel. Broadly speaking, we are looking at the internal departmental procedures adopted by DoT during 2001-09."

Everyone Knows which Judge is Corrupt: SC

Source : Times of India

Maintaining its 'there is something rotten in Allahabad HC' remark, the Supreme Court has virtually declined any relief to Allahabad High Court. The HC had asked for clarification for this comment of the Supreme Court. 

At the same time, a bench of justices Markandey Katju and Gyan Sudha Mishra, while dismissing the Allahabad High Court's application for expunging the remarks, clarified that there were "excellent and good judges too" in the court. 

Rejecting the arguments of senior counsel P P Rao that even a clarification that some are excellent and good judges would still cause suspicion on the integrity of the judges, the bench remarked, "It is not just time to react but also to introspect." 

Reacting to the persistent plea of Rao that the clarification would not be sufficient, Justice Katju angrily retorted, "Do not tell all those things. I and my family have more than 100 years of association with the Allahabad High Court. People know who is corrupt and who is honest. So do not tell me all this." 

Justice Katju further observed, "Tomorrow, if Markandey Katju starts taking bribe, then the entire country will know about it. So do not tell me as to who is honest and who is corrupt." 

Rao submitted that the earlier observations had tarnished the image of the entire High Court judiciary and the rustic would not be able to distinguish between a honest and a corrupt judge. 

"Do not tell me all those things about the rustic. They are much more enlightened. Do not think people of India are fools," the bench observed while dismissing the application. 

The Allahabad High Court had taken strong exception to the apex court's remarks that "something was rotten" and there was "rampant uncle judge syndrome" in the higher court. 

In an application moved through its registry, the High Court had sought expunction of the remarks on the ground that they "have made difficult" for the judges to function and tarnished the reputation of the entire judiciary in Uttar Pradesh. 

"The remarks are unfortunate and uncalled for and has brought down the image of the Allahabad High Court judges in the eyes of the general public. The observations have made it difficult for the judges to function," the application had stated. 

It had submitted that judges of the High Court are appointed only after clearance from the Supreme Court collegium and as such, there was no scope to question their integrity. 

On November 26, in a strong indictment of Allahabad High Court, the apex court had said, "There is something rotten" there and raised serious questions about integrity of several of its judges. 

"Something is rotten in the State of Denmark, said Shakespeare in Hamlet, and it can similarly be said that something is rotten in the Allahabad High Court," a bench of justices Markandey Katju and Gyan Sudha Mishra had said, adding the high court "really needs some house cleaning". 

The apex court bench had also asked the chief justice of the high court to take some strong measures, including recommending "transfers of the incorrigibles". 

It had made the remarks in a 12-page order while making the insinuation that several judges of the high court suffer from 'uncle judge' syndrome, which refers to judges passing favourable orders for parties represented by lawyers known to them. 

The bench's remarks came while scrapping a single- judge bench order of the Allahabad High Court which had asked a Bahraich-based Waqf Board to temporarily allot a portion of its land in May-June this year to the proprietors of a circus for its show during an annual fair. 

Referring to the rampant 'uncle judge' syndrome allegedly plaguing the high court, the apex court bench had said, "Some judges have their kith and kin practising in the same court."

Find the copy of the Order here.