The High Court of Judicature at Bombay has issued a stern reprimand after a litigant joined a scheduled commercial execution hearing via video conferencing while lying on a bed and appearing without clothes. Presiding over the proceedings, Justice Gauri Godse deprecated the conduct, labeling it entirely inappropriate for a courtroom setting, and ordered the individual to be immediately removed from the digital meeting. The incident occurred during a chamber summons filed by Tata Capital Housing Finance Limited against Heera Construction Company Private Ltd and its directors in connection with long-standing execution proceedings.

While the court granted the respondent’s request for exemption from personal appearance for the day, Justice Godse emphasized that the manner in which the party presented himself was unacceptable. The bench clarified that virtual appearances are formal judicial proceedings and must be treated with the same decorum as physical attendance in court. The counsel representing the respondents tendered an apology on behalf of the client for the incident, which the court took on record, yet the gravity of the breach of judicial decorum remained a focal point of the day's proceedings.

Judicial Scrutiny of Disclosure Obligations

Beyond the issue of conduct, the hearing addressed significant lapses in the disclosure of financial assets by the respondent. The court, during its evaluation of the case, scrutinized previous affidavits submitted by the respondent in an attempt to satisfy directives issued earlier in 2026. These earlier orders, dated January 16 and February 4, had mandated a comprehensive disclosure of all movable and immovable assets, bank accounts, and receivables held by the parties, whether encumbered or unencumbered.

Justice Godse pointedly observed that the affidavits provided by the respondent were insufficient and failed to meet the threshold of the court's prior instructions. Specifically, the court noted that the affidavit filed in October 2026 contained only a "guarded statement" regarding the respondent ’s assets. Rather than providing a transparent account of his financial standing, the respondent had merely asserted that no other property in his name was "free and available for attachment and sale ." The court found this insufficient, as it did not constitute a positive declaration of all holdings as required by law.

"This Court, vide order dated 16th January 2026, directed that defendant no.2 disclose all immovable and movable property and all assets, whether encumbered or unencumbered ," Justice Godse remarked, highlighting the discrepancy between the court's explicit requirements and the respondent 's selective disclosures. The court emphasized that two previous affidavits relied upon by the respondent could not be accepted as valid compliance.

Final Opportunity for Compliance

In an effort to ensure the execution of the award, Justice Godse granted a final one-week window for the respondent to rectify these failures. The court has directed that a fresh, comprehensive affidavit must be filed on or before October 21, 2026. This submission must include true and correct particulars of all income tax returns, detailed bank statements, and a complete inventory of both movable and immovable assets dating back to April 1, 2016. Furthermore, the respondent is required to provide full details of any receivables, supported by the necessary evidentiary documentation.

The court made it explicitly clear that this deadline is final. Should the respondent fail to provide the required, transparent disclosure by the specified date, the court is prepared to invoke its powers under Order XXI of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. This provision allows for various measures to facilitate the execution of a decree, which could include more stringent penalties or enforcement actions against the respondent.

Furthermore, to ensure administrative efficiency, the court clarified that if the disclosure affidavits are not served on the applicant’s counsel in advance of the next hearing, the respondent will face the imposition of costs. This ruling serves as a warning that procedural compliance and decorum are not optional in the eyes of the court, particularly when the process involves the recovery of legitimate dues.

Current Procedural Standing

The case, which revolves around the recovery of dues claimed by Tata Capital Housing Finance Limited, remains at a critical juncture. The respondent’s attempt to seek exemption based on health grounds was met with skepticism due to the lack of appropriate medical documentation, though the court opted to grant a one-time relief while mandating proper evidence for any future requests. On the next date of hearing, the respondent is strictly required to either be present in person or provide verified, substantial medical documentation justifying his inability to travel.

As the matter stands adjourned to October 26, 2026, all eyes remain on the respondent’s forthcoming disclosures. The court's firm stance reflects the judiciary's commitment to ensuring that litigants in execution proceedings cannot use evasive tactics—be it through incomplete financial filings or improper conduct—to delay the rightful satisfaction of a court-mandated award. By requiring detailed, document-backed financial transparency for nearly a decade, the High Court is attempting to bring an end to the protracted litigation surrounding the assets of the parties involved. The upcoming deadline of October 21 will determine whether the respondent chooses to comply with the court’s directives or faces further escalation under the established civil procedure framework.