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

2018 Supreme(Bom) 281

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
S.J. KATHAWALLA, J.
Vilas Chandrakant Gaokar & Others – Applicants
Versus
Vilas Chandrakant Gaokar & Others – Respondents
Notice of Motion (L) No. 706 of 2017 in Commercial Suit No. 614 of 2017
Decided On : 05-03-2018

Advocates Appeared:
For the Applicant :Mathew Nedumpara, instructed by Rohini M/Amin, Advocates.
For the Respondent:S. Jagtiani, instructed by M/s. J.Law Associates, Advocates.

Headnote:

Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015 - Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - Section 2 (1) (b)- Rule of Law- Controversies - Notice of Motion - Issue of maintainability is liable - Declaration that Suit is barred by limitation - Dignity and respect of Court along with its prescribed procedures is being unabashedly violated by certain litigants who are using foul and unfair means to demean and denounce august Judiciary by making frivolous and baseless allegations against Judges and/or their opponents and their Advocates with a view to rescind and back-track on solemn undertakings and statements earlier made in Court- This malicious modus operandi of certain dishonest litigants is absolutely unacceptable as it seeks to subvert very foundations of justice that Judiciary is committed to uphold - With no merit in their case and in a bid to avert an unfavorable order being passed against them such dishonest litigants collude with their Advocates to use underhanded means to ensure favorable orders and their consequent success in litigation instituted or defended by them – Held, However he was served with a notice by Plaintiffs lawyer stating he should be present in my Chambers on May - Defendant No- 1 therefore had to engage a Counsel post haste and this Court for reasons difficult to be fathomed was pleased to record undertakings on his behalf as set out therein (in Order dated 12th May 2017) and also recorded in Order that “by consent matter is treated as part-heard” and that any right thinking person would have entertained disturbing thoughts as to integrity and honesty of this Court in passing orders/recording proceedings of Court- That Defendant No-1 has been put to grave injustice by aforesaid orders of Court which has recorded as consent things which were forced to be consented out of sheer fear of Court- extent to which these dishonest and scandalous allegations are made against Court is clearly established from fact that after matter on 9th May 2017 there was a meeting held between Advocate for Plaintiffs and Advocate for Defendant No-1 in presence of Defendant No-1 and Consent Minutes were prepared - dismissed-

JUDGMENT :

1. At this point of time, the Judiciary is mired in challenges of a very grave nature, perhaps like never before. It is being observed that there is, amongst some litigants and their Advocates, virtually no fear or hesitation in making false statements and misrepresentations before the Court, which should under any and all circumstances be dealt with the iron hand of the judiciary with zero tolerance for such blatantly unethical and mala-fide behaviour.

2. The dignity and respect of the Court along with its prescribed procedures is being unabashedly violated by certain litigants who are using foul and unfair means to demean and denounce the august Judiciary by making frivolous and baseless allegations against the Judges, and/or their opponents and their Advocates, with a view to rescind and back-track on solemn undertakings and statements earlier made in Court. This malicious modus operandi of certain dishonest litigants is absolutely unacceptable, as it seeks to subvert the very foundations of justice that the Judiciary is committed to uphold. With no merit in their case, and in a bid to avert an unfavourable order being passed against them, such dishonest litigants collude with their Advocates to use underhanded means to ensure favourable orders and their consequent success in litigation instituted or defended by them.

3. Certain Advocates sadly seem to have forgotten the code of eithcs that enjoins upon all Advocates, that they are Officers of the Court first and Advocates of their clients only thereafter. It is anguishing to note that such Advocates facilitate the unethical misadventures of their clients, often encouraging their clients' dishonest practices, causing grave stress to the Judiciary, and unfortunately bringing the entire judicial system to disrepute. It has become a vicious and despicable cycle wherein dishonest litigants with malafide intentions seek out unethical Advocates, who for hefty fee and the lure of attracting similar new and unscrupulous clients, conveniently choose to disregard and/or forget all ethics and the code of conduct enjoined upon this august profession. It is with a heavy heart, that Courts at times note that clients have no hesitation in replacing good and honest Advocates, with unscrupulous ones, who go to any dishonest lengths, merely to secure favourable orders for their clients.

4. The present case and the conduct of the Defendant No. 1/Applicant strongly affirms the aforesaid observations. The Defendant No.1 Shri Vilas Chandrakant Gaokar had through out the hearing of his case, remained present and appeared before the Court with his Counsel as well as the Advocate on record. He took the assistance of this Court in resolving his issues pertaining to the Suit, gave undertakings in pursuance of it, obtained consent orders and also acted in consonance with the same. However, Defendant No.1 breached one of the undertaking given by him and being fully aware of the consequences thereof, he craftily and quickly changed his Advocates (who had already been previously changed) and briefed Counsel Mr. Mathew Nedumparra, who in turn advised him to file this Notice of Motion. In this Notice of Motion, he has stated that all the previous orders passed by this Court are null and void for reasons which are utterly false and dishonest to the knowledge of his client Shri Vilas Chandrakant Gaokar.

5. This malicious and mala-fide Notice of Motion sets out/alleges totally baseless and contemptible allegations against this Court, which are completely unacceptable and are a mere shenanigan to circumvent the action of contempt of Court. This reprehensible attempt at intimidating and manipulating this Court into not taking any action under the Law of Contempt calls for censure in the strongest terms. In an attempt to cover up the mala-fide intent, which is crystal clear and amply evident, the litigant Shri Vilas Chandrakant Gaokar dishonestly/falsely reiterates in the Application that he holds the Cour

























































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
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