IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
S.J. Kathawalla, J.
Anand Agarwal and Ors. – Appellants
Vs.
Vilas Chandrakant Gaokar and Ors. – Respondents
Notice of Motion (L) No. 706 of 2017 in Commercial Suit No. 614 of 2017
Decided On : 05-03-2018
Making false statements - Misrepresentation - Foul and unfair - 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 – 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 – 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 –Held, Explained in Paragraph 18 hereinabove, the question of hearing the matters and orders being passed without jurisdiction, does not arise – Infact, since the earlier Advocate of the Defendant was well aware that court authorized by the Learned Chief Justice to hear matters throughout the vacations as per my Assignment with effect, they along with the others, including Defendant moved this Court (during vacations and despite the matter not appearing on my board) and obtained consent orders – Again, since all the parties and their respective Advocates including Defendant were aware that several steps were required to be taken in the matter, as agreed and undertaken in the Consent Order they requested me to treat the matter as Part-Heard and accordingly, their consent was recorded in the Order report was also submitted to the Honble the Chief Justice setting out the number of disposals during the court vacations, the matters which were treated as part-heard and the dates on which the same were placed before me including the matters between the Plaintiffs and the Defendants herein – Advocates for the parties including the Advocate for Defendant appeared before me on 12 occasions after the Court reopened and obtained several orders including acceptance of the offer of towards sale of the medical shops of Defendant and its partnership – At no point of time any of them have raised any objection as is now sought to be done – Above Notice of Motion is dismissed.
The judgment observes the following regarding rights of third parties to file separate suits or appeals:
No legitimate third party rights were prejudiced by the ex-parte restraints, as no third party objections were raised despite opportunities; defendants did not claim any such rights on behalf of third parties. [4000579630016]
Proposed third party buyers (e.g., Wellness Group, Mr. Abrol, D-force Electro Werke Pvt. Ltd.) for attached medical shop were permitted to participate in proceedings via offers and payments, but no independent rights to file separate suits or appeals were recognized or exercised by them. [4000579630035][4000579630036][4000579630037][4000579630038][4000579630039][4000579630040][4000579630042][4000579630043]
Third party consents (e.g., from Mr. Vipul Shah) were obtained for share transfers, but such third parties were not granted any rights to file separate suits or appeals in the proceedings. (!) (!) (!) [4000579630034]
No observations indicate that any third party exercised or was recognized as having rights to file a separate suit or appeal against the orders. [4000579630016]
S.J. Kathawalla, J.
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 ethics 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 mala-fide 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
Byram Pestonji Gariwala v. Union Bank of India
Govindarajan and Others v. K.A.N. Srinivasa Chetty and others
Kiran Narottamdas Merchant v. Ravindra Narottamdas Merchant
Kiran Singh and others v. Chaman Paswan and others
Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar and others v. State of Maharashtra and Another
Raja Kumara Venkata Perumal Raja Bahadur v. Thatha Ramasamy Chetty
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.