Back
2011 Supreme(Bom) 558
2011 ALL MR (Cri) 2088
High Court of Judicature at Bombay
B.H. MARLAPALLE & A.M. THIPSAY
Mr.Goolam E. Vahanvati
Versus
Anil Gulabrai Gidwani
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3397 OF 2003
Decided on : 06-05-2011
For the Petitioner: H.J. Dedhia, Additional Public Prosecutor.
For the Respondent:The Respondent appears in person.
Headnote:Maharashtra Vexatious Litigation (Prevention) Act, 1971 - Section 2(1)-Vexatious litigant- A party conducts himself in an improper manner during course of any legal proceedings-Cannot be declared as a "vexatious litigant"-No order under Section 2(1) of Act can be passed against him-Order passed under Section 2(1) of Act puts restriction on rights of party to initiate or institute legal proceedings at his peril.- Merely because a party conducts himself in an improper manner during the course of any legal proceedings, it would not be proper to declare such a party as a "vexatious litigant" and to pass an order as contemplated under Section 2(1) of the Act against him. Passing an order under Section 2(1) of the Act would put restriction on the rights of the party to initiate and/or institute the legal proceedings at his peril.
Maharashtra Vexatious Litigation (Prevention) Act, 1971 - Section 2(1)-Vexatious proceedings-Act intends to prevent only harassment as to be caused by instituting vexatious proceedings-Not other forms of harassment for which appropriate legal action can be taken by aggrieved person.-The Act intends to prevent only the harassment as would be caused by instituting vexatious proceedings, and not other forms of harassment, for which appropriate legal action can be taken by the aggrieved person.
Maharashtra Vexatious Litigation (Prevention) Act, 1971 - Section 2(1)-Vexatious proceedings-To be instituted in any Court or Courts-Complaints made to various police authorities-Cannot be termed as "vexatious proceeding", under Act.-The complaints mentioned at Sr. Nos. 1 to 6 above would not come within the purview of the Act. It is clear that the Act seeks to prevent the institution or continuance of the vexatious proceedings in Courts. Section 2 of the Act also refers to the institution of the vexatious proceedings in any Court or Courts. Thus, the complaints made to the various police authorities cannot be termed as "vexatious proceedings" within the meaning of the Act.
Maharashtra Vexatious Litigation (Prevention) Act, 1971 - Sections 2(1) and 3-"Court"-Bar Council-Complaint against victim lady with Bar Council-Bar Council cannot be termed as a "Court"-Proceedings filed by respondent against victim lady with Bar Council-Outside purview of Act-Cannot be taken into consideration.-The petition then refers to a complaint filed by the respondent against the victim lady with the Bar Council. In Court’s opinion, the Bar Council cannot be termed as a "Court" and therefore, the proceedings filed by the respondent against the victim lady with the Bar Council would be outside the purview of the Act and therefore, cannot be taken into consideration. Undoubtedly, the conduct of the respondent insofar as it appears from the filing of the said proceedings may be taken into consideration while deciding the propriety of treating him as a vexatious litigant, but this complaint made by him to the Bar Council cannot be added to the list for showing the number of alleged vexatious proceedings initiated by him.
A.M. Thipsay, J.
1. This is a petition filed by the Advocate General for the State of Maharashtra under Section 2(1) of the Maharashtra Vexatious Litigation (Prevention) Act, 1971, praying that the Respondent be declared as a vexatious litigant and that he be restrained by an order of this Court from initiating any fresh proceedings against one Smt.Shanta Mhatre (mentioned as “the victim lady” in the petition) and from initiating any further application in any pending matters, without seeking prior permission of this Court.
2. This petition is based on the information received by the Petitioner from the said Smt.Shanta Mhatre (hereinafter referred to as “the victim lady”) that the victim lady is being continuously harassed by the Respondent who is habitually and without any reasonable ground, instituting various vexatious proceedings, civil as well as criminal, against her. The petition in paragraph No.1 itself gives the details of the proceedings initiated by the Respondent against the victim lady. The petition states on the basis of the information received by the Petitioner from the victim lady that the Respondent has been in the habit of using filthy language, making false, baseless and serious allegations against the Judges of the Small Causes Court, Mumbai where an ejectment suit filed by the Respondent against the victim lady is pending. The Respondent is the landlord and the victim lady is his tenant. It is also stated in the petition that in the pending suit between the parties, the Respondent has been continuously filing the applications after applications and has, in the course of argument levelled false, baseless and frivolous allegations against the victim lady using most abusive language against her. The Respondent has not only threatened the Judges of the Small Causes Court, Mumbai but has also cast aspersions on the judiciary by making certain statements before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 9th Court, Bandra about “inefficiency of the judicial system” and “leniency shown by the Magistrate towards criminals”. It is also stated that inspite of specific warning given by the learned Magistrate, the Respondent continued to make unwarranted statements and therefore, the Magistrate was required to warn him in open Court and by passing an order on 16.01.2003. The petition also states that the victim lady, who is an Advocate, was constrained to give up her practice, having been required to attend the various civil as well as criminal matters filed by the Respondent and due to unnecessary litigations filed against her by the Respondent. The petition also states, that with object of causing undue harassment and humiliating the victim lady, the Respondent has been referring to the victim lady by her earlier name which the victim lady has got changed. The Respondent also filed a false complaint against the victim lady with the Bar Council, which was dismissed. The Respondent has been filing the proceedings against the victim lady with malicious intention and that the applications which he files are false and frivolous. The petition also gives certain details of the proceedings between the Respondent and the victim lady. The petition gives several instances of misbehaviour of the Respondent with the victim lady and consequent harassment caused by the Respondent to the victim lady. After giving these details, the petition states that the Respondent has habitually and without any reasonable ground instituted the vexatious proceedings, civil and criminal, in the Small Causes Court, the City Civil Court and Criminal Courts.
3. The petition has been opposed by the Respondent by filing a written reply. The Respondent has denied that he is, habitually and without any reasonable ground, initiating various vexatious proceedings against the victim lady. While denying the averments in the petition to the effect that the Respondent has cast aspersions on the judiciary, the Respondent has stated that
