The Court held that the Respondent's conduct was contumacious and deliberate, and that he had repeatedly abused the liberty granted by the Court.

1. This is one more matter where a party, in this case, the Respondent, who despite being given repeated opportunity has repeatedly abused the liberty granted by the Court. The Respondent, if let off, it will erode the faith that the public have on judiciary. The rule of law is premised upon the faith reposed by the people in the justice delivery system. To prevent erosion of that faith, contemptuous behaviour needs a strict treatment. These three Contempt Petitions have been filed seeking action against the same Respondent- Manek Dara Sukhadwalla under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 charging against him of having contumaciously and deliberately breached orders of this Court. The Respondent has filed an application for Probate of a Will of one Late Purvez Burjor Dalal (PBD), claiming to be the Executor under the said Will. The Probate Petition has been independently challenged. We are not going into the merits of the Probate Petition. It is alleged that the Respondent has deliberately and contumaciously not disclosed or submitted incomplete disclosures repeatedly of the assets of the said PBD and of his dealings with the estate of PBD. According to the Petitioners, the Respondent has been given many opportunities to make full disclosures but the Respondent was deliberately giving piece-meal and incomplete disclosures. According to the Petitioners, the Respondent is on a false assumption that the Courts do not take such acts or omissions seriously or commit any party in contempt. The Petitioners' case is that the gravity of the contempt is aggravated by the fact that the Respondent claims to have acted as an Executor of the estate of the deceased. It is alleged that the Respondent owed a fiduciary duty not only to the estate but also primarily to the Testamentary Court and even the piecemeal or incomplete disclosures have not been made voluntarily but only after Court Orders compelled the Respondent to do so and the Respondent has repeatedly abused the liberty granted by the Court.

2. The Petitioners' allege breach and continued defiance of orders of this Court passed on 21st June 2012, 24th December, 2013 and 29th June 2015, each directing the Respondent to make full and complete disclosure of the assets belonging to the estate of Late PBD and his dealings therewith. It is alleged that the Respondent has filed 8 Affidavits including 3 of disclosure from time to time in these 3 Contempt Petitions and in related matters and the fact that so many affidavits of disclosure have to be filed itself shows that the Respondent has been economical with the truth. It is also stated that the affidavits have also setup contradictory stories and an unconditional apology and justification cannot go hand in hand. An apology must be a bona-fide act of contrition and unless offered at the earliest opportunity and in good grace is shorn of penitence. It is alleged that the Respondent declined to tender any apology in the Affidavits filed to Contempt Petition Nos.4 of 2012 and 2 of 2014 and has filed a belated apology in his reply to the last Contempt Petition No.5 of 2015. Such an apology is insincere and an attempt to relieve the Respondent of the natural consequences of his contumacious conduct.

3. The Respondent has till date filed 8 affidavits (including in these 3 Contempt Petitions) including, as already stated, with regard to his purported disclosure of assets and his dealings viz.:-

(i) Disclosure Affidavit dated 12th July 2012, filed in Notice of Motion No.138 of 2012, pursuant to Orders of this Hon’ble Court dated 21st June 2012 and 4th July 2012 (“1st Disclosure Affidavit”).

(ii) Affidavit in Reply to Contempt Petition No.4 of 2012, dated 10th April 2013.

(iii) Affidavit dated 8th July 2013 in reply to Notice of Motion No.138 of 2012 for appointment of Administrator and injunction.

(iv) Affidavit dated 27th July 2015, in the Administrator’s Report No.1 of 2014, pursuant to Order dated 29th June 2015 (“2nd Disclosure Affidavit”).

(