SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2016 Supreme(Bom) 490

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
S.C. DHARMADHIKARI And G.S. PATEL, JJ.
Mr. Rajendra Vinayak Mehta – Appellant
Versus
Mrs. Veena Jaswant Shah – Respondent
APPEAL NO. 25 OF 2011 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 426 OF 2010 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 399, 147 OF 2010,CRIMINAL APPLCATION NO.84, 125 OF 2008, CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1468 OF 2003 WITH CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 57 OF 2010 IN SRP 1 /26 MISC. PETITION NO. 54 (LODG NO.306) OF 2010 IN TESTAMENTARY PETITION NO. 237 OF 2009. WITH TESTAMENTARY PETITION NO. 282 OF 2010
Decided on : 28-04-2016

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Ms. Smita Patel, Constituted Attorney for the Appellants present in person.
For the Respondent: Mr. B.K. Barve with Mr. Sandeep B. Barve and Ms. Archana Lad i/b M/s. B.K. Barve & Co.

Important Point—Presiding Officers are duty-bound to regulate conduct of parties, their Advocates, their agents.

Headnote:Practice and Procedure—Right of Audience—Presiding Officers are duty-bound to regulate conduct of parties, their Advocates, their agents in order to preserve and maintain faith of common man in institution of judiciary---Respect for the same cannot be allowed to be undermined by conduct and behaviour of a few in open Court—It is far too precious and must be upheld at any cost---Parties in person, litigants and their agents should not forget that Judges and Presiding Officers are strict in their demeanour and may appear to be stern and at times far too disciplinarian.

       Result—Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT :

S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.

1. This appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is directed against an order of a learned single Judge dated 2nd September, 2010, in Criminal Application No.84 of 2008 with Criminal Application No.147 of 2010 with Criminal Application No. 125 of 2008 in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1468 of 2003, alongwith Misc. Petition (Lodg) No.306 of 2010 in Testamentary Petition No. 237 of 2009. The appellants before us are original respondent Nos.1 and 2. They are both senior citizens. The respondent Nos.3 and 4 are the original respondents.

2. It is the case of the appellants that they had presented an application on an affidavit dated 5th April 2010 to the then Hon’ble the Chief Justice to take immediate measures to control grant of ex-parte orders, take immediate corrective measures and provide speedy justice to the appellants and consolidate three matters to be heard together, namely, Criminal Writ Petition No.1468 of 2003 of the Appellate Side, Misc. Petition (Lodg) No.306 of 2010 in Testamentary Petition No. 237 of 2009 on the Original Side and Testamentary Petition No. 282 of 2010 on the Original Side. All the three matters were filed by the original respondent No.1 to this appeal and others. An order was passed on 24th August, 2010, clubbing these three matters and assigning them to the learned single Judge. On 30th August, 2010, all three matters were listed on the Board of the learned single Judge for directions. They were adjourned to 1st September, 2010, with a direction to the Constituted Attorney Ms. Smita Patel to satisfy the Court about her authority to argue the matter. It is the appellants’ case that they had appointed her as their Constituted Attorney. On that date, namely, on 1st September, 2010, she placed before the Court several authorities in support of her submission that she has been duly authorized in law by these appellants. It is then claimed that on 2nd September, 2010, the impugned order has been passed and we are concerned with the correctness and legality of this order.

3. The sequence of events and the essential controversy can very well be appreciated if one reproduces an order passed by this Court on 30th September, 2013, in these very proceedings :

“2. The facts of the case, briefly stated are as under:-

2.1 Mr. Rajendra Vinayak Mehta was granted a probate of the Will dated 7 August 2995 executed by Shrimati Vinayak Mehta, as per order dated 4 September 2009 of the learned single Judge in Probate Petition No.237 of 2009.

2.2 Mrs.Veena Jaswant Shah and others filed Misc. Petition (Testamentary) No.54 of 2010 (Initially Misc. Petition (L) No.306 of 2010) for revocation of the above probate on the ground that Mr. Rajendra Vinayak Mehta had played a fraud on the Court by concealing the Will dated 14 May 1992 executed by mother/parents of Mr. Rajendra Vinayak Mehta in favour of Mrs. Veena Jaswant Shah.

2.3 Mr. Rajendra Vinayak Mehta and his Constituted Attorney Ms. Smita Patel filed a criminal complaint against Mrs. Veena Jaswant Shah, her husband Mr. Jaswant Shah and their son Mr. Sameer Shah alleging that the accused had forged the Will dated 14 May 1992 for obtaining the flat in question and also forged signatures to obtain Rs.16 lacs and odd standing in the name of parents of Mr. Rajendra Vinayak Mehta. The Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai ordered an investigation under section 202 of Cr.P.C. and after police submitting the report of inquiry on 25 September 2002, the Metropolitan Magistrate took cognizance of the report and issued process against the accused, Mrs. Veena Jaswant Shah, aged 74 years, Mr. Jaswant Shah, aged 78 years and their son Mr. Sameer Shah, aged 44 years. All the three accused filed Criminal Writ Petition No.1468 of 2003 challenging the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate issuing process.

3. On 2 September 2010, learned Single Judge (Coram: Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Roshan Dalvi) passed three separate orders:

(A) By the first order dated 2 September 2010, learne













































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top