Lawyers let off, accusers issued contempt notice
In Bhalla vs Bhala property deed dispute worth 1000 cr, lawyers Aspi Chinoy and Rajani Iyer exonerated.
The Bombay High Court has exonerated two very Senior Advocates from the allegation of obtaining favourable order by conniving with the client and misrepresenting facts and has instead issued contempt notices against the makers of these allegations.
Justice Anil Menon, in an order pronounced on Friday, has exonerated Senior Advocates Rajani Iyer and Aspi Chinoy, law firm Dhruve Liladhar & Co. and a host of other lawyers assisting the counsels in the case from defrauding the HC. Justice Menon has also issued show cause notice for criminal contempt against Advocates Kuldip Pawar and Nilesh Ojha and their client Prasad Arvind Sant.
The matter pertains to a dispute for an over 40 acre property in Mumbai Mulund area, which could be worth well over Rs 1000 crore. The main dispute about ownership is whether the owner is Randhir Singh Bhala or Randhir Singh Bhalla. The case on which Justice Menon passed the order of Friday was connected to challenging a City Civil Court order by Bhalla.
There are proceedings between Prasad Arvind Sant – against whom Justice Menon has issued contempt notice and one Ashiq Ali Merchant for sale of the property in question. The contention by both Sant and Merchant is that Merchant had bought the property from Bhala who was represented by Sant as a Power of Attorney holder.
Bhalla, through his Power of Attorney holder Maneesh Bawa, has challenged the outcome and proceedings of these cases between Santa and Merchant in HC. In this challenge filed by Bhalla, the HC – Justice Menon himself – granted a stay on the execution or progress of City Civil Court proceedings.
It is this particular order that which has been alleged to have obtained fraudulently by Sant through a separate application. Sant, in this application making various allegations against the entire team representing Bawa and Bhalla, has said that the lawyers conspired in such a way that they showed the HC that they (Bawa and Bhalla) became aware of the City Civil Court proceedings only in September 2015. Sant’s application said that this was done with a view to show that the case filed by Bawa and Bhalla does not cross the “limitation period of three years.”
Limitation period means the time within which a case has to be filed, otherwise it can be dismissed by the concerned court on this ground alone. Sant said that Bawa and Bhalla became aware of the City Civil Court proceedings in or before 2012 and therefore could not have filed the case in HC in December 2015.
The court, however, dismissed the application saying, “The strategy adopted is to make frivolous allegations against the Advocates and incapacitate the Plaintiffs in a manner such that word gets around that the present Applicant will not hesitate to adopt proceedings against the Advocates who appear against him. The result of this would be to deprive the Plaintiffs of proper legal representation, thereby frustrate the Plaintiffs attempt to obtain proper representation.”
The Bombay High Court has exonerated two very Senior Advocates from the allegation of obtaining favourable order by conniving with the client and misrepresenting facts and has instead issued contempt notices against the makers of these allegations.
Justice Anil Menon, in an order pronounced on Friday, has exonerated Senior Advocates Rajani Iyer and Aspi Chinoy, law firm Dhruve Liladhar & Co. and a host of other lawyers assisting the counsels in the case from defrauding the HC. Justice Menon has also issued show cause notice for criminal contempt against Advocates Kuldip Pawar and Nilesh Ojha and their client Prasad Arvind Sant.
On the conduct of the Advocates Pawar and Ojha, the court observed, “In my view such conduct is in terrorem, was clearly to prejudice the course of judicial proceedings as contemplated in the Contempt of Courts Act. So also it is evident the allegations against the Advocates appearing for the Plaintiffs at every stage tends to interfere with and obstruct the administration of justice inasmuch as the attempt on behalf of the Applicant is to prevent the Advocates representing the Plaintiffs. The allegations are intended to prevent the Advocates from discharging their duties as Officers of this Court and perform their duties towards their Clients.”
The matter pertains to a dispute for an over 40 acre property in Mumbai Mulund area, which could be worth well over Rs 1000 crore. The main dispute about ownership is whether the owner is Randhir Singh Bhala or Randhir Singh Bhalla. The case on which Justice Menon passed the order of Friday was connected to challenging a City Civil Court order by Bhalla.
There are proceedings between Prasad Arvind Sant – against whom Justice Menon has issued contempt notice and one Ashiq Ali Merchant for sale of the property in question. The contention by both Sant and Merchant is that Merchant had bought the property from Bhala who was represented by Sant as a Power of Attorney holder.
Bhalla, through his Power of Attorney holder Maneesh Bawa, has challenged the outcome and proceedings of these cases between Santa and Merchant in HC. In this challenge filed by Bhalla, the HC – Justice Menon himself – granted a stay on the execution or progress of City Civil Court proceedings.
It is this particular order that which has been alleged to have obtained fraudulently by Sant through a separate application. Sant, in this application making various allegations against the entire team representing Bawa and Bhalla, has said that the lawyers conspired in such a way that they showed the HC that they (Bawa and Bhalla) became aware of the City Civil Court proceedings only in September 2015. Sant’s application said that this was done with a view to show that the case filed by Bawa and Bhalla does not cross the “limitation period of three years.”
Limitation period means the time within which a case has to be filed, otherwise it can be dismissed by the concerned court on this ground alone. Sant said that Bawa and Bhalla became aware of the City Civil Court proceedings in or before 2012 and therefore could not have filed the case in HC in December 2015.
The court, however, dismissed the application saying, “The strategy adopted is to make frivolous allegations against the Advocates and incapacitate the Plaintiffs in a manner such that word gets around that the present Applicant will not hesitate to adopt proceedings against the Advocates who appear against him. The result of this would be to deprive the Plaintiffs of proper legal representation, thereby frustrate the Plaintiffs attempt to obtain proper representation.”
