Bombay HC Exonerates Two Senior Advocates From Allegations of Misrepresenting Facts Issues Contempt Notices Against Advocates Who Made The Allegations
Bombay HC Exonerates Two Senior Advocates From Allegations of Misrepresenting Facts Issues Contempt Notices Against Advocates Who Made The Allegations
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
NMSL No.3457/2015
C
ou
rt
.. Applicant
.. Plaintiffs.
ig
h
Vs.
Prasad Arvind Sant & Ors.
.. Defendants.
Mr. Aspi Chinoy, Senior Counsel with Dr. Birendra Saraf, Mr.
Nikita Mishra i/b M/s. Federal & Rashmikant for the Plaintiffs.
Mr. Nilesh Ojha i/b Kuldeep Pawar for the Applicant.
om
ba
y
A.K. MENON, J.
RESERVED ON
P.C. :
1.
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
NMSL No.3457/2015
a finding that
the plaintiffs
rt
(a)
C
ou
ig
h
contempt of court.
of
ba
y
directed
to
investigate
certain
offences
om
(g) to
deprive
appeared
the Senior
Advocate
who
2.
is supported by an affidavit
dated
2/51
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
NMSL No.3457/2015
rt
C
ou
ig
h
Mr.Ojha
the
ba
y
om
54.
aware of the
in the Bombay
the Consent
passed
in
9th December,
dated 21st
on or about
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
NMSL No.3457/2015
who
have
of
promptly
C
ou
the
on the part
rt
Court
at
approached
the
earliest
ig
h
4.
ba
y
evident from the fact that in certain other suits filed by the
plaintiffs
om
upon
and
as
more
particularly
relied
with
in
the following
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
NMSL No.3457/2015
rt
C
ou
criminal
ig
h
ba
y
om
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
NMSL No.3457/2015
of documents which
rt
We are
C
ou
ig
h
aware of the suits and the power of attorney for the first time
about 24 th September, 2015 was incorrect.
He
ba
y
7.
om
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
NMSL No.3457/2015
rt
C
ou
material since the present application is for vacating the adinterim order on the basis of the aforesaid incorrect
8.
ig
h
statement.
Mr. Ojha tendered
ba
y
om
It
the
Hon'ble
Supreme
Court
held
that
the
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
NMSL No.3457/2015
rt
C
ou
ig
h
ba
y
om
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
NMSL No.3457/2015
Article 58 for filing suit for declaration time was began to run
from the date on which direct and effective invasion on their
rt
C
ou
Presently the
ig
h
This aspect of
ba
y
Mr. Ojha is
that the
om
judicial process has been violated and the order has obtained
by playing of fraud on the Court. He relied upon the decision
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India V/s.
Ramesh Gandhi (2012) 1 SCC 476 and submitted that a
judgment obtained by playing fraud on a superior Court
without full disclosure of all necessary facts and therefore
said judgment is a nullity and tantamount to playing fraud on
the Court. He submitted that the facts of the present case
justifies application of the said judgment. Mr. Ojha submitted
that the facts in the present case it will just and proper and
that
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
NMSL No.3457/2015
11.
rt
(Supra).
Mr. Ojha then launched a blistering attack on all
C
ou
plaint in the present suit and all those Counsel who appeared
for the plaintiffs. According to him all advocates including
counsel involved in the drafting of the plaint and those who
appeared in Court, including the Senior Counsel Ms. Iyer, at
ig
h
ba
y
om
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
NMSL No.3457/2015
V/s.
New
Okhla
Industrial
Development
rt
Employees Cooperative
C
ou
Contempt of Court.
ig
h
ba
y
476.
(3)
383.
om
(4)
SCC 126.
(5)
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
NMSL No.3457/2015
rt
an Advocate is
C
ou
As regards the
ig
h
ba
y
not having pointed out to the Court the correct position and
for preparing pleadings contained
om
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
NMSL No.3457/2015
rt
C
ou
ig
h
case that the plaintiffs were neither aware nor were they
made aware and nor did they have any prior knowledge of
the Bombay City Civil Court proceedings this is paragraph 54
ba
y
om
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
NMSL No.3457/2015
rt
no.1
had
issued
C
ou
of the plaintiffs submitted that Mr. Ojha who appeared for the
statements
to
the
Press
ig
h
of
Mr.
Ojha
attributing
to
him
16.
Motion.
ba
y
om
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
NMSL No.3457/2015
17.
rt
impression that the Plaintiffs did not get a copy of the Power
That Mr.Chinoy failed to
C
ou
ig
h
18.
ba
y
om
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
NMSL No.3457/2015
19.
rt
informed Mr. Ojha that the Purshis need not be filed since
C
ou
ig
h
Purshis contains
intended
to
ba
y
om
20.
do
Thereupon he proceeded to
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
NMSL No.3457/2015
rt
21.
follows;
C
ou
ig
h
of
Chamber
Summons
served
to
the
ba
y
Original Documents.
22.
om
Mr.
Chinoy denied it and submitted that the Plaintiffs did not get
the inspection at the material time. Nothing was produced
by defendant no.1 to establish that inspection was in fact
granted at the material time. Mr.Ojha submitted,
without
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
NMSL No.3457/2015
Mr. Ojha, Mr. Chinoy has misguided the Court and said that
the Plaintiffs did not get the copy of the Power of Attorney at
rt
C
ou
which the first letter was addressed by M/s Shah & Sanghavi
@ page 119 of the Motion) the Plaintiffs were aware of the
ig
h
ba
y
om
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
NMSL No.3457/2015
rt
following documents ;
C
ou
ig
h
ba
y
om
No.1.
No
one
appeared
on
behalf
of
the
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
NMSL No.3457/2015
rt
C
ou
and Sanghavi, the said firm had applied for a Certified Copies
of the Chamber Summons along with all annexures.
Chamber
Summons
was
apparently
disposed
of
The
on
received on or about
ig
h
which
has
reported
and
confirmed
that
the
ba
y
December, 2013.
25.
Mr. Ojha
om
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
NMSL No.3457/2015
Thereafter,
inspection
of
the
Sanghavi,
the
then
Counsel
for
rt
Plaintiffs.
C
ou
ig
h
ba
y
pleaded
Counsel
by
Plaintiffs.
On
the
contrary
for
Plaintiffs
Mr.
Chinoy
trying
the
to
om
of Attorney.
4)
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
NMSL No.3457/2015
rt
imposters
and
fake
persons.
The
C
ou
are
ig
h
ba
y
om
The submission
22/51
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
NMSL No.3457/2015
rt
C
ou
ig
h
ba
y
om
plaintiffs.
But
Shri
Chinoy
instead
of
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
NMSL No.3457/2015
rt
C
ou
blatantly
false
statement
in
the
had
appeared
before
him
and
ig
h
26.
ba
y
om
24/51
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
NMSL No.3457/2015
28.
rt
C
ou
ig
h
ba
y
29.
om
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
NMSL No.3457/2015
November, 2015
C
ou
recorded
rt
that
ig
h
30.
ba
y
have also since called for and verify the records of Suit
no.920, 917 and 919 and Chamber Summons 429 of 2012
and other Chamber Summons.
om
seeks
amendment
to
join
persons
and
for
The
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
NMSL No.3457/2015
rt
C
ou
known then.
ig
h
In this
ba
y
the said paragraph is to be read along with the fact that the
plaintiffs pleading is to the fact that they learnt about the
suit filed in the City Civil Court for the first time as also the
om
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
NMSL No.3457/2015
and obtaining the consent order thereon. Prima facie the suit
is clearly within time.
rt
C
ou
32.
ig
h
54 of the plaint.
ba
y
Advocates have
om
Suit
nor
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
NMSL No.3457/2015
rt
C
ou
ig
h
ba
y
om
the Power of Attorney but the suits filed in the City Civil Court
and the consent terms filed therein and consent decree
obtained thereon.
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
NMSL No.3457/2015
being passed in the second suit in the City Civil Court. The
power of attorney was not treated as the cause of action for
rt
C
ou
ig
h
Attorney was only valid for six months. Thus the Power of
Attorney dated 24/11/2011 expired by efflux of time in May
2012. The astonishing part is the revelation that even on the
basis of this invalid power of attorney proceedings were filed
ba
y
34.
om
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
NMSL No.3457/2015
rt
C
ou
ig
h
ba
y
om
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
NMSL No.3457/2015
rt
C
ou
ig
h
ba
y
granted.
36.
om
The
the
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
NMSL No.3457/2015
rt
C
ou
was intended to mislead the Court nor was this Court misled
in any manner due to reference to the Power of Attorney. In
ig
h
ad-interim stage.
ba
y
om
the tendency to
of Court,
and in my view
33/51
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
NMSL No.3457/2015
has
caused
the
plaintiff's
previous
Advocates
M/s.
Dhruve
rt
am
not
C
ou
any
personal
ig
h
to others also.
39.
ba
y
om
to
creation
of
atmosphere
as
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
NMSL No.3457/2015
C
ou
40.
rt
administration of justice.
obtained
in
the
City
Civil
Court
proceedings
ig
h
Plaintiffs.
ba
y
om
Counsel.
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
NMSL No.3457/2015
an
atmosphere
of
prejudice.
If
such
rt
and
C
ou
41.
ig
h
ba
y
om
the opponent.
Advocates are
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
NMSL No.3457/2015
rt
C
ou
ig
h
42.
If it is
Generally
ba
y
that
threatens
to
bring
the
authority
of
om
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
NMSL No.3457/2015
rt
C
ou
to face the wrath of Mr. Ojha and his machinations and the
risk of the alleged acts of fraud being attributed to him/her
and/or having misled the Court or played fraud upon the
Court. It is
ig
h
Upon such
ba
y
om
There is
44.
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
NMSL No.3457/2015
rt
Counsels by Purshis seems to rest upon the fact that the first
Defendant or that the Plaintiffs had knowledge of the Power
C
ou
ig
h
Plaintiffs.
not the Plaintiffs case that they have informed the Counsel
who drafted the plaint or the Counsel who appeared to the
contrary. The plaint in paragraph 54 sets out in terms said
that the Plaintiffs first came to know of the City Civil Court
proceedings and the Power of Attorney in September 2015.
That statement continues on the record of this Court having
ba
y
om
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
NMSL No.3457/2015
rt
C
ou
ig
h
ba
y
om
by
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
NMSL No.3457/2015
the
defendant-
contemner.
The
defendant
rt
C
ou
ig
h
ba
y
om
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
NMSL No.3457/2015
rt
C
ou
ig
h
Advocate
on
account
of
similar
ba
y
om
was
uttered
in
the
course
of
the
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
NMSL No.3457/2015
rt
C
ou
been
quoted
by
our
above,
their
ig
h
om
ba
y
on
the
Pending
the
Court
in
suit
of
which
the
was
Senior
pressure
withdraw
his
on
the
suit,
respondent
or
face
to
the
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
NMSL No.3457/2015
which
the
course
of
justice
is
rt
C
ou
ig
h
against
him
can,
in
our
om
ba
y
unmistakable
proceedings
tendency
taken
of
against
the
the
were
instructions
merely
carrying
contained
in
out
the
the
circular
letter".
It may be noted that in the above
case, there were no threats issued by the
government. What the government did
was
that
disciplinary
it
started
action
departmental
against
the
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
NMSL No.3457/2015
was
taken
by
the
Government
in
rt
launching
of
departmental
C
ou
held
ig
h
om
ba
y
a whole, the
amounted
to
Contempt
of
Court.
46.
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
NMSL No.3457/2015
such, not that such frivolous allegations will dent the ability
or reputation the counsel concerned have earned but it
Thus
rt
C
ou
ig
h
favour.
47.
ba
y
om
It is in respect of
out
threat
of
prosecution
and
later
on
had
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
NMSL No.3457/2015
rt
C
ou
ig
h
48.
ba
y
om
47/51
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
NMSL No.3457/2015
49.
reads as under;
When it is alleged, or appears to the Supreme
rt
(1)
C
ou
ig
h
to the charge;
ba
y
om
charge; and
(d)
make
such
order
for
the
punishment
or
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
NMSL No.3457/2015
rt
C
ou
ig
h
ba
y
om
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
NMSL No.3457/2015
50.
rt
attendance as aforesaid.
In the present case the Applicant has made allegations
Counsel, who had
C
ou
appeared for the Plaintiffs on 26th November, 2015 when an adinterim order was passed. Earlier when M/s Shah and Sanghavi,
Advocates and Solicitors were acting for the present Plaintiffs, the
applicant had made allegations of the said Advocates as well.
This was the first occasion when the Applicant took-up a plea
my
view
ig
h
strategy
that
of
embarrassing
On or
contention raised was that the plaintiff had made false statements
on oath to the effect that the Plaintiffs were not aware of the
Power of Attorney dated 24/11/2011. The statement in para 54 of
ba
y
the plaint according to him, was false and was made only in order
to show urgency and obtain an ad-interim order. According to the
Applicant's Counsel the Plaintiffs had knowledge of the Power of
Attorney in the month of March-2012 when Chamber Summons
om
the Plaintiffs
under Sections 191, 193, 209, 199, 200, 465, 466, 471 and liable
to be sent to the Police Custody in view of the Provision of Section
341 (B) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Learned Counsel for the
Applicant contended that the Registrar (Judicial) should be
50/51
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
NMSL No.3457/2015
rt
C
ou
ig
h
(iii)
dismissed.
ba
y
om
against them.
(iv)
51/51