1 of 23

rt

APP(L).352.2014 (5)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

C
ou

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

ig
h

APPEAL (L) NO.352 OF 2014

IN
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.313 OF 2014
IN
SUIT NO.175 OF 2014
Sanjay s/o Mishrimal Punamiya,
Flat No.21, 5th Floor, A-Sabah Court,
73/105, Marine Drive, Mumbai-400020.

versus

: Appellant
(Org.Deft.No.1)

om

ba
y

1. Sheikhan Fadiah Saad Al-Abdullah Al-Saban,

through Constituted Attorney Mr.Firas El-Kurdi,
Arabian Gulf Street, Shaab Palace,
P.O.Box 841, Hawalli-32009, Kuwait.
2. Amish Amir Shaikh,
Room Next to Flat No.1, GroundFloor,
Al-Sabah Court, 73, Marine Drive,
Mumbai-400020.
3. Mahesh s/o Rupnarayan Soni,
Shop No.3, Golden Next, Phase-8,
Mira-Bhayandar Road, Thane-401 107.

(Org.Plaintiff)

(Org.Deft.No.2)

(Org.Deft.No.3)
: Respondents

Mr.Pradeep Sancheti, Senior Advocate with Mr.Mahendra Patel i/b.

Mahendra Patel & Associates for the appellant.
Mr.Sharan Jagtiani with Mr.Munir Merchant, Mr.Javed Dhorajiwala,
Mr.Shadab Peerzade and Mr.Ravindra Khilare i/b. Munir Merchant &
MZM Legal for respondent no.1/plaintiff.

::: Downloaded on - 01/10/2014 02:14:15 :::

2 of 23

APP(L).352.2014 (5)

C
ou

Mr.R.S.Mishra i/b. R.K.Mishra & Co. for respondent no.3.

rt

Mr.R.L.Tolat i/b. L.C.Tolat for respondent no.2.

Mr.D.J.Khambata, Advocate General Amicus Curiae.

CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. AND

M.S.SONAK, J.
DATE

: 3 September 2014

ig
h

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Chief Justice)

This appeal is directed against order dated 7 May 2014 of

a learned Single Judge of this Court in Notice of Motion No.313 of

2014 in Suit No.175 of 2014 on the Original Side, insofar as the
learned Single Judge has issued notice upon appellant herein

ba
y

(defendant no.1 in the suit) and his Advocate Mr.Nilesh Ojha, to show
cause, if any, why action for contempt of Court should not be initiated
against them under Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (`the Act'). The

om

learned Judge has passed the above order upon the grounds that the
acts of the appellant and his Advocate detailed in the order are both
scandalous and defamatory and constitute contempt in the face of the
Court. The learned Single Judge found that this was a fit case for
initiating action against them for having committed criminal contempt
under the Act and, therefore, the show cause notice under the Act was
accordingly issued.

::: Downloaded on - 01/10/2014 02:14:15 :::

3 of 23

The facts leading to filing of this appeal may be briefly

rt

2.

APP(L).352.2014 (5)

C
ou

stated as under.
(a)

Respondent no.1 herein (plaintiff) is the owner of

Flat No.21, 5th Floor, Al-Sabah Court, Building No.73, on Marine

Drive in Mumbai (`the suit flat or the flat'). The flat admeasures
7,000 sq.ft. There is a garage, a room on the ground floor and room
adjacent to the terrace. The plaintiff who is daughter of owner of the
Sabah Court.

ig
h

building (Shaikh of Kuwait) claims title of the entire building AlThe plaintiff's case in the suit is that appellant

(defendant no.1) has trespassed upon the suit flat which was in

possession and occupation of the constituted attorney of plaintiff's

father, one Faizal Essa Alyousuf Al-Essa (`Faizal'). The said Faizal
had kidney transplant in January 2013 in Mumbai and after

ba
y

recovering from the surgery, he left India for Kuwait on 6 May 2013
for rest.

om

(b)

The appellant (defendant no.1) claims to have been

inducted as a tenant into the suit flat from Faizal on the basis of
alleged tenancy agreement dated 30 October 2012 for a rent of
Rs.50,000/- per month.

Defendant no.1 had filed a suit for

declaration of tenancy in Court of Small Causes, Mumbai. The suit

was filed against Shaikh Saad Al-Abdullah who was the Shaikh of
Kuwait and had expired on 24 November 1965. The writ of summons
in the said suit in the Court of Small Causes was shown to have been
served on Faizal on 8 April 2013 through the court bailiff. The suit
was decreed ex-parte on 9 May 2013 soon after service of summons.

::: Downloaded on - 01/10/2014 02:14:15 :::

4 of 23

APP(L).352.2014 (5)

rt

Defendant no.1 in the said suit claimed that no summons was served

(c)

C
ou

upon him.

The plaintiff relied upon the affidavits of 16 neighbours

to show that Faizal was the care taker and administrator of the
building and was occupying the suit flat until 6 May 2013 when he
left for Kuwait. The plaintiff also relied upon valuation report dated
14 March 2013 of the suit building which was made on the basis of

ig
h

inspection of the suit premises, when plaintiff was shown to be in

possession of the suit flat and the other flats in the building were
shown to be tenanted. The plaintiff also relied upon the letter dated

10 April 2013 of an interior decorator who was engaged for interior

decoration of the suit flat and who sent his invoice along with the said

ba
y

letter dated 10 April 2013.

(d)

The plaintiff averred that defendant no.1 is a tenant in

respect of flat no.3 situated on 1st floor of the said building. While

om

Mr.Faisal was occupying the suit premises before he left for Kuwait on 6
May 2013, defendant no.2 used to visit regularly the suit premises as
well as the ground floor premises and develop a friendship with the
servants/staff (who were living in the servants quarters of the said
building) of the plaintiff and by winning over these servants/staff by
paying substantial sums and by bringing pressure upon them, defendant
no.1 got access to the office of the plaintiff with all blank receipts and
seals and also used the servants/staff of the plaintiff to sign documents
of purported legal proceedings and used them as witnesses by recording
their false pre-dated statements. Accordingly, the plaintiff averred that
in connivance with these people, defendant no.1 executed his unlawful

::: Downloaded on - 01/10/2014 02:14:15 :::

5 of 23

APP(L).352.2014 (5)

(e)

C
ou

floor and 6th floor premises adjacent to the terrace.

rt

conspiracy to illegally oust the plaintiff from the suit flat and the ground

The present suit was filed on 5 December 2013 and the

plaintiff's Advocate served notice dated 8 March 2013 to the appellant

along with a copy of plaint and Notice of Motion for interim
injunction. Again on 2 May 2013, the plaintiff's Advocate sent fresh
reliefs on 7 May 2013.
(f)

ig
h

notice to appellant stating that Court would be moved for ad-interim

On 7 May 2014, when the counsel for plaintiff

commenced his arguments, the counsel for appellant (defendant no.1

in the suit) was instructed by Advocate Mr.Nilesh Ojha, who stated

ba
y

before the Court presided over by the learned Single Judge that a
complaint dated 5 May 2014 was made by the appellant to the Chief
Justice against the Single Judge hearing the Notice of Motion and,
therefore, the Single Judge must recuse herself.

A copy of the

om

complaint dated 5 May 2014 was tendered by learned counsel for

defendant no.1 before the Court. The complaint makes allegations
that the appellant (defendant no.1) was approached with an offer for
corrupting the Single Judge through her acquaintance since 11 March
2014 and that the appellant had meetings in the month of March 2014
with regard to the allegations of corruption. The complaint purported
to have two enclosures : (i) copy of the plaint in the suit giving rise to
the present appeal; and (ii) copy of the call details amongst the
applicants and some of the non-applicants.

::: Downloaded on - 01/10/2014 02:14:15 :::

6 of 23

When a copy of the above complaint dated 5 May 2013

rt

(g)

APP(L).352.2014 (5)

was tendered by the Advocate for defendant no.1 before the Single

C
ou

Judge, the Single Judge called upon the Advocate to show Enclosure-

2 to the complaint i.e. statement of call details and the Advocate for
appellant stated that the copy of that enclosure was not with him and
that it would be brought from his residence. Ultimately, the counsel
for appellant tendered one token issued by the mobile company
showing the date 7 May 2014 being an application for obtaining

ig
h

transcript of certain calls. The Single Judge noted that the hearing of
application (Notice of Motion) being made by the plaintiff was sought
to be thwarted and that the Court would not be a privy to allow abuse

of process of law. The Court also referred to the recent decision of

Supreme Court which was rendered only two days prior to 7 May
2014. In the said order in case of Subrata Roy Sahara Vs. Union of

ba
y

India and others1, the Supreme Court has noted the tendency on the
part of some people to indulge into forum shopping by making
unfounded and motivated allegations or brow-beating the Court. The

om

Single Judge also referred to the observations made by the Apex

Court that the path of recusal is very often a convenient and a soft
option and that if the Court were to succumb to such pressures on
account of unfounded and motivated allegations, it would tantamount
to the Judge not fulfilling the oath of office.
(h)

The Single Judge then heard the Notice of Motion for ad-

interim relief and directed by an ad-interim order that defendant no.1

(appellant herein) shall not create any third party rights in respect of
suit flat pending final disposal of the Notice of Motion. The learned
1 Writ Petition (Criminal) No.57 of 2014

::: Downloaded on - 01/10/2014 02:14:15 :::

7 of 23

APP(L).352.2014 (5)

rt

Single Judge also restrained the staff members of the appellant from
appended to the suit flat.
3.

C
ou

creating any third party rights in respect of other rooms which were

It is necessary to note that in response to the above order,

the Registry of this Court issued show cause notice under Section
14(3) of the Act to the appellant (defendant no.1) and his Advocate
Mr.Nilesh Ojha on 22 May 2014 and both of them filed their separate

ig
h

affidavits in response to the show cause notice. In his affidavit dated

20 June 2014, the appellant (defendant no.1) purported to tender
unconditional apology. Mr.Nilesh Ojha the Advocate for the appellant

also tendered apology, but prayed that the matter be placed before
another Single Judge. The Single Judge passed an order dated 23
June 2014 not accepting the apologies tendered by the appellant and

om

ba
y

his Advocate and, inter alia, made the following observations :

4. I find no cause shown to the notice for contempt
in the face of this Court committed by the aforesaid
contemnors as specified in my order which is of making
false allegations of corruption against the Court in open
Court without producing evidence relied upon in the
complaint to substantiate the allegations and demanding
recusal of the Court.
5.
The apologies are unacceptable.
The
affidavit of the advocate of defendant no.1/contemnor
no.2 would show an aggravated contempt.
6.
The advocate of defendant no.1/contemnor
no.1 has also rendered a separate affidavit claiming to
be tried by another Judge of this Court under Section
14(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act.

::: Downloaded on - 01/10/2014 02:14:15 :::

8 of 23

APP(L).352.2014 (5)

C
ou

rt

7.
I deem it appropriate that the contempt in
the face of my Court made as aforesaid be tried by
another Judge of this Court as per Section 14(2) of the
Contempt of Courts Act.
Hence I direct the
Prothonotary & Senior Master, High Court, Bombay to
place this matter before the Hon'ble Chief Justice
together with my statement of facts of the case for
passing directions for the trial thereof as per Section
14(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
4.

Along with said order, the learned Single Jude annexed

ig
h

the statement of facts of the case under Section 14 of the Act, which,
inter alia, read as under :

Statement of the Facts of the Case under Section

14(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
ORDER
Defendant No.1 and his Advocate Nilesh Ojha
through this counsel O. D. Kakade made false,
unsubstantiated, scandalous, contemptuous allegations
about the integrity of this Court on 7th May, 2014 during
the hearing of the application for ad-interim reliefs
moved by the Plaintiff when they demanded that I
recuse myself as a complaint in that behalf had been
filed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice. A copy of the
complaint without annexures shown therein was given
to me after the allegations were made in open Court.
Advocate Nilesh Ojha appeared without filing his
appearance. I have heard the application on merits and
passed an order taking into account the criminal offence
committed thereby, the contempt made in the face of the
Court and the relevant civil law. I have issued a show
cause notice of contempt made in the face of the Court
as per Section 14 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
(the Act). I have thus complied with Section 14(a)
and (b) of the Act.

om

ba
y

(1)

::: Downloaded on - 01/10/2014 02:14:15 :::

9 of 23

APP(L).352.2014 (5)

rt

I annex as Exhibit A a copy of my order dated 7 th

May, 2014.
CALL DETAILS
The call details relied upon by defendant No.1
and stated to be annexed as Annexure 2 to the complaint
would be the only document to substantiate the
allegations in the complaint. I called upon defendant
No.1 to show me the call details. He did not produce it
before me.

C
ou

(2)

ig
h

Hence truth as a valid defence to the

contemptuous act available to defendant No.1 under
Section 13(b) of the Act is not shown.

ba
y

He later produced a token/receipt No. 94 of

VODAFONE dated 7th May, 2014 showing an
application made for call details at 12:32:21 p.m. along
with another number when the arguments in the
application were in progress. Hence the application for
call details were made 2 days after the complaint was
made to the Hon'ble Chief Justice though shown to be
enclosed with the complaint.

om

The mobile Telephone number applied for the

transcript is not of my husband or mine.
The call details of the telephone number
mentioned in the receipt are yet not produced. Now
defendant No.1 has called upon the CBI to procure it !
I annex as Exhibit B a copy of the token and
number given.
(3)

SIMILAR SUIT
I was informed by the plaintiff's counsel that the
property in the above suit is owned by the same plaintiff
as the property in another suit being Suit No. 2955 of
2010. These are 2 buildings, fully tenanted at Marine
Drive, Mumbai owned by the family of the
Shaikh/Shaikah of Kuwait. Both the suits are on

::: Downloaded on - 01/10/2014 02:14:15 :::

10 of 23

APP(L).352.2014 (5)

C
ou

rt

trespass upon largely similar facts. The Notice of

Motion No. 3262 of 2010 in Suit No. 2955 of 2010
came up before my Court for final hearing in
November, 2013. I had passed an order on 19th
December, 2013 for appointment of Court Receiver
and put the plaintiff in possession as the agent of the
Receiver upon giving security as determined by the
Court Receiver. I have passed the usual order of
injunction against transfer and alienation against the
defendants.
I annex as Exhibit C a copy of my order dated
19 December, 2013 in Notice of Motion No. 3262 of
2010 in Suit No. 2955 of 2010.

ig
h

th

Defendant No.1 in the above suit is lives in the

same neighbourhood as the defendants against whom
that order came to be passed. His case is much the
same. He would know my earlier order and hence
would want to avoid my Court.

ba
y

That suit is stated to be settled in appeal.

om

(4) to (7)

(a)

...

The learned Single Judge thus noted that she had already

passed an order on 19 December 2011 in another suit for appointment of

the Court Receiver and put the plaintiffs in that suit in possession of a
flat in the other building belonging to Shaikh of Kuwait and trespassed
by the defendant in that suit. It was further noted that defendant no.1 in
the present suit living in the same neighbourhood would know the
earlier order passed by Justice Dalvi and would want to avoid her Court.

(b)

The Single Judge has also noted that present appellant

::: Downloaded on - 01/10/2014 02:14:15 :::

11 of 23

APP(L).352.2014 (5)

rt

(defendant no.1) had made similar allegations against learned

Metropolitan Magistrate when the criminal complaint for trespass was

C
ou

filed by the plaintiff against present appellant and that Mr.Nilesh Ojha
has also made scandalous allegations against other Judges and he had
sought a press conference on 22 March 2014.
6.

When this appeal reached preliminary hearing on 9 July

2014, the learned counsel for the appellant proposed to tender an

ig
h

affidavit of the appellant withdrawing the allegations set out in his

letter dated 5 May 2014 addressed to the Chief Justice and also
tendering unconditional apology to the Court. At that time, the

attention of learned senior counsel was invited to the provisions of

Section 13(b) of the Act to the effect that notwithstanding anything
contained in any law for the time being in force, the Court may

ba
y

permit, in a contempt proceeding, justification by truth as a valid

defence. After the learned Senior Counsel explained the same to the
appellant in the Court, the appellant, however, stated that he wished to

om

unconditionally withdraw all the allegations in the compliant dated 5

May 2014 and to tender unconditional apology to this Court. Learned
senior counsel for the appellant then tendered the affidavit dated 30
June 2014 of the appellant unconditionally withdrawing all the
allegations set out in his letter/representation dated 5 May 2014
addressed to the Chief Justice and tendering unconditional apology to
the Court. The appellant thereafter filed another affidavit dated 24
July 2014 tendering unconditional apology. When the matter reached
hearing on 4 August 2014, the learned senior counsel for the appellant
prayed for adjournment to file further affidavit for making a clean

::: Downloaded on - 01/10/2014 02:14:15 :::

12 of 23

APP(L).352.2014 (5)

plaintiff.

rt

breast of himself and also to deal with the affidavit filed by the
The appellant has thereafter filed affidavit dated 2

C
ou

September 2014 reiterating that he had unconditionally withdrawn all

the allegations set out in his letter/representation dated 5 May 2014.
7.

At the hearing of this appeal, which is directed against

order dated 7 May 2014 for issuing a show cause notice under
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the learned Advocate General

ig
h

appointed by this Court as Amicus, raised a preliminary objection

regarding maintainability of the appeal on the ground that only a
show cause notice was issued and no order is yet passed. Section 19

of the Act provides that the appeal shall lie from any order or decision
of the learned Single Judge to a Bench of two Judges of High Court
and that since merely show cause notice is issued, there is no final

ba
y

decision either in Suit or on show cause notice.

8.

Learned counsel for the appellant (defendant no.1),

om

however, submitted that the appeal is maintainable in view of the

observations made by learned Single Judge which has culminated in
the impugned order for issuance of show cause notice. Reliance was
placed upon a decision of Supreme Court in Midnapore Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. and others Vs. Chunilal Nanda and others 2 and it is
submitted that even if an order does not finally decide an issue, if the
order decides a collateral issue or question which is not subject matter
of the main case, an appeal would be maintainable under Clause-XV
of the Letters Patent.
2 AIR-2006-SC-2190

::: Downloaded on - 01/10/2014 02:14:15 :::

13 of 23

Learned counsel for the appellant also sought to urge that

rt

9.

APP(L).352.2014 (5)

the learned Single Judge was not justified in passing the order for

C
ou

issuing show cause notice under Section 14 of the Act because

making a complaint dated 5 May 2014 to the Chief Justice of the

High Court on administrative side cannot be said to be an act of
contempt in the face of the Court of learned Single Judge. It was
vehemently submitted that appellant (defendant no.1) merely
requested the learned Single Judge to recuse from the matter on the

ig
h

ground that he had made a complaint to the Chief Justice against

learned Single Judge and, therefore, when learned Single Judge asked
for a copy of the complaint, the Advocate for appellant simply

produced that complaint before the learned Single Judge and,

therefore, there was no contempt.
Learned Amicus Curiae pointed out that no such defence

ba
y

10.

was taken by the appellant or his Advocate either in the appeal memo
of the present appeal filed on 5 June 2014 or in the affidavit dated 20

om

June 2014 filed before learned Single Judge or in the affidavit dated
30 June 2014 filed in the present appeal or even in the subsequent
affidavit dated 24 July 2014. In none of these pleadings, the appellant
even whispered such a defence. For the first time, the appellant raises
this defence in the affidavit dated 2 September 2014 and, therefore,
this is mere an after thought.
11.

We have carefully gone through the aforesaid decision in

Midnapore Peoples' Co-op. Bank Ltd. (supra) wherein the Supreme

Court has discussed against which orders an appeal would lie under

::: Downloaded on - 01/10/2014 02:14:15 :::

14 of 23

APP(L).352.2014 (5)

rt

Clause-XV of the Letters Patent. It is not necessary to dwell further

on this aspect because the impugned order does not finally decide

C
ou

either the main dispute between the parties nor does it finally decide
any collateral question. It does not decide the question whether the

appellant and his Advocate had committed contempt in the face of

Court. Learned Single Judge has merely passed an order directing to
issue show cause notice and in compliance with the said order, the
Registry of this Court has issued show cause notice dated 22 May

ig
h

2014 under Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The appellant as well as

his Advocate Mr.Nilesh Ojha have already appeared in those
proceedings and filed their respective affidavits-in-reply dated 20

June 2014. In our view, therefore, this appeal is not maintainable.

12.

Since we are disposing of the appeal as not maintainable,

ba
y

we are not required to express any opinion on the merits of the

contention noted above. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as not

om

maintainable.
13.

It would, however, not suffice to close the matter at this

stage as, in our view, the acts on the part of appellant (defendant no.1)
and his Advocate Mr.Nilesh Ojha on 5/7 May 2014 and thereafter,
prima facie, amount to criminal contempt of this High Court. In
Daily Mumbai Mirror of 8 May 2014, a half page prominent news
item appeared as reported by Bapu Deedwania with following
headlines in colour:

::: Downloaded on - 01/10/2014 02:14:16 :::

15 of 23

APP(L).352.2014 (5)

rt

YOU ARE CORRUPT, DEFENDANT TELLS JUDGE

C
ou

Producer Sanjay Punamiya makes allegation in Court;

Refusing to relent, Justice Roshan Dalvi says she will
continue hearing case

The daily Bombay Mirror has given a coloured caricature illustration

of learned Single Judge and a photograph of the appellant. The news
item not only purported to report the incident which allegedly

ig
h

occurred during the hearing of the case before the learned Single
Judge on 7 May 2014, but also the allegations made in the aforesaid
complaint dated 5 May 2014 about the alleged promise by relative of
learned Single Judge to give a favourable order from the learned
stated as under :

Single Judge on payment of Rs.25 lakhs. The reporter specifically

ba
y

(The learned Single Judge) read the complaint

and instead of giving up and recusing herself,
said she would continue to hear the case ..

om

The news paper clearly indicates that Mr.Nilesh Ojha, Advocate gave
an interview to the reporter about the complaint dated 5 May 2014, a
copy of which was submitted to the Chief Justice and also sent to the
Director of CBI and others and as to why CBI has not taken action on
the complaint.
14.

Not resting there, Mr.Nilesh Ojha, Advocate for

appellant, thereafter submitted another representation dated 21 May

2014 to the Chief Justice running into 84 pages endorsing copies of
the same to Chairman-National Human Rights Commission, Bar
Council of India, Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa and Chairman-

::: Downloaded on - 01/10/2014 02:14:16 :::

16 of 23

In the said representation, the

rt

Bombay Lawyers Association.

APP(L).352.2014 (5)

Advocate Mr.Nilesh Ojha has made allegations about interpolations in

Single Judge.

C
ou

the order dated 7 May 2014 and praying for prosecution of the learned
The entire so called representation, prima facie,

contains intemperate reckless allegations and is prima facie intended

to scandalize, and to lower, the authority of Court and with a view to
interfere with the course of judicial proceedings in the above suit.

As indicated in the statement of facts of the case prepared

ig
h

15.

by the learned Single Judge which is part of the order dated 23 June
2014, the appellant wished to avoid the Court of learned Single Judge

who had passed the order of appointment of Court Receiver in a

similar case of trespass in the adjoining building. The appellant had
made similar allegations against learned Metropolitan Magistrate who

ba
y

was hearing the complaint filed by the plaintiff against the appellant
for trespass into the suit flat. It is also necessary to note that in
support of the plaintiff's case that the appellant (defendant no.1) has

om

trespassed into the suit flat, in the trial case, the Plaintiff had filed
affidavits of as many as sixteen neighbours occupying the flats in the
same building. The appellant has filed criminal complaint against all
of them being Criminal Complaint No.153/SW/2013 in the Court of
Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai for making false statements.
16.

All the above acts of the appellant are required to be seen

cumulatively for their impact and the inference which is prima facie
required to be drawn would be that when ever appellant apprehends
that he would not get a favourable order from a judicial authority, the

::: Downloaded on - 01/10/2014 02:14:16 :::

17 of 23

APP(L).352.2014 (5)

rt

appellant makes allegations against the Judge presiding over the

concerned Court and when witnesses give evidence against him, the
Such acts,

C
ou

appellant files criminal case against the witnesses.

therefore, prima facie, tend to interfere with the smooth functioning of

judicial process and cause obstruction in administration of justice.
17.

Learned counsel for respondent no.1 (plaintiff) also

invited our attention to the letter dated 4 June 2014 addressed to the

ig
h

Advocate for plaintiff alleging that the Advocates for plaintiff also
committed illegal and unethical acts by arguing against the Advocate
of defendant no.1/appellant.

A copy of the said letter was also

endorsed to two learned senior counsel appearing for the plaintiff in

the above Notice of Motion and the suit. The endorsement of said
letter to the senior counsel resulted into senior counsel withdrawing

ba
y

from the proceedings.

18.

We may note at this stage that the Advocate for the

om

appellant/defendant no.1 states that they have sent the letter to two
senior counsel for withdrawing the letter insofar as the said two
counsel are concerned. However, nothing has been placed before us.
19.

It thus appears that the Advocates, who appeared for a

party against the appellant, also are made to face the wrath of the
appellant by making reckless allegations against such Advocates of
breach of professional ethics.

We fail to understand how the

Advocates for the plaintiff committed breach of any professional

ethics by appearing for the plaintiff and arguing their case by praying

::: Downloaded on - 01/10/2014 02:14:16 :::

18 of 23

APP(L).352.2014 (5)

rt

for ad-interim reliefs against the present appellant, who is defendant

no.1. Similarly, endorsement of the said letter dated 4 June 2014 to

C
ou

senior counsel appearing for the plaintiff was also intended to have
the same effect and to obstruct the administration of justice.
20.

In our view, therefore, suo motu proceedings are required

to be initiated against appellant under Section 15 of the Contempt of

Courts Act, 1971 for prima facie having committed criminal

21.

ig
h

contempt, as defined by Section 2(c) of the Act.

Similarly, Advocate Nilesh Ojha by making allegations

against the learned Single Judge in the open Court about the alleged
corruption of the Single Judge through her relative and also by
sending copy of complaint dated 5 May 2014 to various persons other

ba
y

than Chief Justice of the High Court, such as Director of CBI and also
by sending the complaint/representation dated 21 May 2014 to
various persons including bar councils, prima facie, scandalized and

om

lowered the authority of High Court and interfered and obstructed in

the smooth administration of justice. Therefore, suo motu proceedings
under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 are required to
be initiated against Mr.Nilesh Ojha.
22.

In exercise of our suo motu jurisdiction, therefore, we

direct the Registry to issue notice to the appellant and Advocate

Mr.Nilesh Ojha to show cause why proceedings should not be
initiated against them under Section 15 read with Section 2(c) of the
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for the acts indicated hereinabove,
which prima facie, constitute criminal contempt of this High Court.

::: Downloaded on - 01/10/2014 02:14:16 :::

19 of 23

We are further of the view that show cause notice is also

rt

23.

APP(L).352.2014 (5)

required to be issued to Mr.Bapu Deedwania, reporter of daily

C
ou

Bombay Mirror, who has prepared the report published in daily

Mumbai Mirror edition of 8 May 2014. The report so published

would prima facie constitute criminal contempt as defined under

Section 2(c) of the Act not merely because the report hurriedly
publishes allegations against a Sitting Judge of this Court without
waiting for the outcome of the enquiry pursuant to the complaint and

ig
h

even without looking at the order dictated by the Judge on 7 May and
uploaded on 9 May 2014, but also for the manner in which the report
scandalizes by giving the headlines, which are already reproduced

hereinabove and the caricature illustration of the learned Single

Judge. Looking at even a black and white photostat copy of the
writing in the report, one would not be able to realize the impact that

ba
y

the coloured headlines and coloured caricature of the Judge would

convey.

om

24.

We may further note that in the past when the allegations

were made against the Testamentary Department of this Court and

such allegations were published in daily news paper Times of India,
without making any attempt to verify the truthfulness of the
allegations, contempt proceedings were initiated against the editor of
Times of India, who subsequently filed affidavit dated 20 December
2010 tendering an apology and assuring as under:
I most humbly submit that the news paper has a
robust system of checks. I will upgrade and
strengthen it further so as to ensure that such
articles or news reports related to courts, do not in
future, scandalize the judiciary or interfere with

::: Downloaded on - 01/10/2014 02:14:16 :::

20 of 23

ig
h

C
ou

the administration of justice in any manner. I

undertake that adequate diligence will be
exercised in respect of the articles and reports
covering working and functioning of the Hon'ble
Court to ensure that the articles meets the highest
journalistic standards and do not scandalize,
interfere with or obstruct the administration of
justice or cause contempt to the Hon'ble Court in
any manner. In future, such reports, articles and
matters will be appropriately verified and ratified
before publishing the same. As a matter of fact, as
expressed in this Hon'ble Court, all the articles
and reports which are being received from the
reporters are already being vetted and ratified by
Senior Journalist's who also covers Judicial
proceedings in this Hon'ble Court and only
thereafter, the said information/material is being
placed on my desk for approval. In this particular
instance there was an inadvertent lapse in not
following the protocol.

rt

APP(L).352.2014 (5)

The learned counsel further stated at the hearing of the

ba
y

25.

above Contempt Petition that this assurance will be carried out by all
the editions of Time of India and that for this purpose, the Executive

om

Editor of Times of India will issue necessary instructions to the

Editors of all the editions of Times of India in the country,
specifically instructing that no article or report containing defamatory
allegations against the Court or judiciary shall be published in any
edition of Times of India without such report, article/matters being
appropriately verified and ratified by the editor of that particular
edition.
26.

Apart from giving such an assurance to the Court on

affidavit and through their counsel, the Editor and owner of the Times
of India published an apology given to this Court on the front page of

::: Downloaded on - 01/10/2014 02:14:16 :::

21 of 23

APP(L).352.2014 (5)

rt

the Times of India (Mumbai Edition) of 15 December 2010 which

C
ou

read as under:

ig
h

The Times of India had published three

articlesinitsprinteditiononNovember20,
22 and December 4, 2010 and its internet
edition on December 1, 2010 regarding the
allegations by Uday Dandavate that his
father's probate was inordinately delayed
becauseheallegedlyrefusedtopaymoneyto
officialsintheTestamentarydepartment.

om

ba
y

Subsequently,aninquirywassetupby
theHon'bleChiefJusticewhichfoundthatthe
allegations were false and came to the
conclusion,UdayandhisAdvocateweretobe
blamedforthedelay.Asamatteroffact,the
saidTestamentarypetitionwasdecidedinless
than three years, out of which a period of
almosttwoandahalfyearswasconsumedby
thepartyandhisAdvocate,inpaymentcourt
fees, complyingwithvariousformalitiesand
removingofficeobjections.
Accordingly, to this effect, a press
release was issued by the Hon'ble Bombay
High Court on 3.12.2010, which we have
alreadypublishedinanarticleon05.12.2010,
clarifying to our readers that the said
allegations of corruption,as reported by us,
were not true. We hereby state that our
reporter, though required, did not verify or
ascertain the correct facts from Registrar
General of the Hon'ble High Court or any
other concerned official. As a result,
incorrect,misleadingandwronginformation
was printed and published by us, as also
published on the internet edition about the
functioning of the Testamentary department

::: Downloaded on - 01/10/2014 02:14:16 :::

22 of 23

APP(L).352.2014 (5)

C
ou

rt

of the Hon'ble High Court, Bombay. We

deeply regret the same and express our
sincereandprofoundapologyforthislapse.

ig
h

Wehumblysubmit that,we neverhad

any intention to scandalize or lower the
supremeauthority,majestyanddignityofthe
Hon'ble HighCourt,Bombay. Westate that
what has happened was purely out of
inadvertence and a lapse on our part and
expressourdeepregretforthesame.Wehad
no intention whatsoever to malign or
disrespect the Hon'ble Bombay High Court.
Wemostrespectfullysubmitthatwehavethe
highest regard for judiciary and express our
deepregretandsincerelyandunconditionally
apologize for the harm and inconvenience
causedbyus.

It is, therefore, shocking that notwithstanding such

ba
y

27.

assurances, such a scandalous, defamatory and contemptuous report

came to be published in daily Mumbai Mirror dated 8 May 2014.

om

Notice shall, therefore, be issued to the Editor, Mumbai Mirror, Times

of India, to show cause as to why proceedings under Section 15 read
with Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 should not be
initiated against him.
28.

We make it clear that only notice on the suo motu contempt

proceedings is issued. We have not yet issued Rule and that we will
consider the question as to why rule nisi should not be issued against
the following four persons arraigned as opponents in the suo motu
contempt proceedings:

::: Downloaded on - 01/10/2014 02:14:16 :::

23 of 23

(1) Sanjay s/o Mishrimal Punamiya,

Flat No.21, 5th Floor, A-Sabah Court,
73/105, Marine Drive, Mumbai-400 020.
Nilesh C. Ojha, Advocate,
Flat no.702, `B' Wing, Rameshwar Tower-1,
New Golden Nest, Bhayander (East),
Tal. Vasai, Dist. Thane401 101.

(3)

Bapu Deedwania,
C/o. Mumbai Mirror, Times of India,
Mumbai.

ig
h

C
ou

(2)

rt

APP(L).352.2014 (5)

(4) Editor, Mumbai Mirror (Times of India),

Mumbai.

State of Maharashtra will be respondent no.5 in the suo

motu contempt proceedings merely as a formal party.
29.

Returnable date of notice to the respondents in the suo

ba
y

motu contempt proceedings will be 13 October 2014.

30.

It is clarified that pendency of this suo motu proceeding

om

would not come in way of the learned Single Judge of this Court in
proceeding with the hearing of Notice of Motion in the Suit or the
Suit itself. On the contrary, we request the learned Single Judge to
hear and decide Notice of Motion No.313 of 2014 as expeditiously as
possible and preferably by 30 September 2014.
CHIEF JUSTICE

(M.S. SONAK, J.)

mst

::: Downloaded on - 01/10/2014 02:14:16 :::