Bombay High Court
Aakar Infraprojects Pvt Ltd And ... vs Municipal Corporation For ... on 14 January, 2021
Bench: S.J. Kathawalla, B.P. Colabawalla
Kanchan Nitin 1 / 6 1-WP-2364-2015.doc
P. Dhuri
Digitally
signed by
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Kanchan P.
Dhuri
Date:
2021.01.16
20:45:30
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
+0530
WRIT PETITION NO. 2364 OF 2015
Aakar Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. ... Petitioners
Versus
MCGM and Ors. ... Respondents
ALONG WITH
CHAMBER SUMMONS (L) NO. 442 OF 2015
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 2364 OF 2015
WITH
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 385 OF 2018
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 2364 OF 2015
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2415 OF 2020
Mr.Sanjay Jain a/w. Mr.Karl Tamboly, Mr.Dhaval Mehta i/b. D.M. Legal Associates
for the Petitioners.
Ms.Rupali Adhate for MCGM.
Mr.Sukanta Karmarkar, AGP for the State.
Ms.Kruti Bhavsar a/w.Mr.Vijay Kurle for Respondent No.14.
Dr.Birendra Saraf, Sr. Adv. a/w. Mr. Vaibhav Charlawar, Mr. Ajay Vazirani, Ms.Viloma
Shah, Mr.Dhiren Durante i/b. Lexicon Law Partners for the Applicants in IA No. 2415
of 2020.
CORAM : S.J. KATHAWALLA, &
B.P.COLABAWALLA, JJ.
DATE : 14TH JANUARY, 2021.
Nitin 2 / 6 1-WP-2364-2015.doc
P.C. :
1. On 21st September, 2020, this Court passed the following Order :
"1. On 19th December, 2019, the above Writ Petition
alongwith the above Notice of Motion and Chamber
Summons were heard fnally. On 19 th December, 2019, the
same was reserved for orders. Though the Order was ready
by March 2020, the same remained to be pronounced due to
the prevailing pandemic. Since the praecipe was received
from the Advocate for the Petitioners by the Court Ofce in
September, 2020 that the Judgment/Order has remained to
be pronounced, the matters were today placed for directions
to enquire from the Advocates as to whether they wish to
reiterate their submissions.
2. Earlier i.e. on 19th December, 2019, Advocate M.V. Raut
had represented Respondent No.14 before us. Ms. Kruti
Bhavsar has today informed us that in February 2020, she
had fled Vakalatnama for Respondent No.14 after
obtaining 'No Objection' from the Advocate who was earlier
representing Respondent No.14. She has informed the
Court that in July 2020 she has fled an Interim
Application seeking declaration that the above Writ Petition
is not maintainable. She admits that she has not served the
Interim Application on the Advocate for the Petitioners till
date. She further states that she has very recently fled
another Interim Application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. and
Nitin 3 / 6 1-WP-2364-2015.doc
that Advocate Vijay Kurle is appearing as her Counsel in
the said Interim Application. She states that the said
Application is also not served on the Advocate for the
Petitioners.
3. Advocate Ms. Rama Subramaniam stated that she is
representing Respondent No.6 - Mr. Rajkumar
Radheshyam Hinduja in the above Writ Petition. She
further stated that Respondent No.6 has taken out Notice of
Motion (L) No.586 of 2018 which is not disposed of till
date and is pending. When this Court inquired as to what
were the reliefs sought by Respondent No.6 in the said
Notice of Motion, she stated that Respondent No.6 has
prayed for being joined as party Respondent to the above
Writ Petition since the Petitioners have played a fraud on
the Respondent No.6. We pointed out to Advocate Ms.
Subramaniam that as an Advocate of this Court she ought
to know that if her client is already joined as party
Respondent No.6 to the Writ Petition, the question of her
client taking out Notice of Motion for being joined as party
Respondent to the Writ Petition does not arise. We further
informed the Advocate Ms. Subramaniam that she is
making incorrect and irresponsible statements in the matter
without going through the papers, since Notice of Motion (L)
No.586 of 2018 which is later numbered as Notice of
Motion No.385 of 2018 is the Notice of Motion taken out by
the Petitioners in the above Writ Petition and not by
Nitin 4 / 6 1-WP-2364-2015.doc
Respondent No.6, which was heard alongwith the above
Writ Petition and reserved for Judgment on 19 th December,
2019.
4. Advocate Ms. Subramaniam now informs us that she is
not appearing for Respondent No.6 but is appearing for the
Applicant in Chamber Summons (L) No.528 of 2018, and
not in Notice of Motion (L) No.528 of 2018.
5. After going through the papers we fnd that Chamber
Summons (L) No.528 of 2018 was taken out by an
Advocate by the name of Sandeep Deshmukh. Advocate
Ms. Subramaniam now states that she is appearing as a
Counsel in Chamber Summons (L) No.528 of 2018. We
thereupon informed Ms. Subramaniam that the said
Chamber Summons is already dismissed for non-removal of
ofce objections pursuant to an Order dated 22 nd February,
2019 passed by the Learned Prothonotary and Senior
Master of this Court, and questioned her as to how
Advocate Deshmukh has instructed her to appear before us
today in the said Chamber Summons which was dismissed
more than a year back, she states that she has not
received any instructions from Advocate Deshmukh since
she is not in contact with him since the last several months.
6. Practicing Advocates cannot have such a callous and
casual approach towards their clients, the Court and the
matters handled by them. The conduct of Advocate Ms.
Subramaniam, who has wasted about half an hour of the
Nitin 5 / 6 1-WP-2364-2015.doc
Court, is unpardonable and is strongly deprecated. Since
the Chamber Summons (L) No.528 of 2018 is already
dismissed pursuant to the Order dated 22 nd February, 2019
passed by the Learned Prothonotary and Senior Master of
this Court, we have nothing more to add qua the said
Chamber Summons.
7. In the circumstances, we pass the following Order :-
(i) We defer the pronouncement of the fnal
Judgment/Order in the above Writ Petition.
(ii) Advocate Ms. Kruti Bhavsar is directed to forthwith
forward copies of two Interim Applications fled by her on
behalf of Respondent No.14 to the Advocate for the
Petitioners, as well as to the Advocate for the other
Respondents.
(iii) The Petitioners and/or any other parties desirous of
fling response to the Interim Applications taken out on
behalf of the Respondent No.14 may do so by 5 th October,
2020.
(iv) Stand over to 9th October, 2020 for further hearing.
8. This Order will be digitally signed by the PA/PS of this
Court. All concerned will act on production by fax or email
of a digitally signed copy of this Order."
2. On 28th October, 2020, at the request of the learned Advocate for the
Petitioners, the matter was adjourned to 27 th November, 2020. On 27th November,
Nitin 6 / 6 1-WP-2364-2015.doc
2020, it was decided that the matter will be heard physically. In view thereof, the
matter was adjourned to 14th January, 2021.
3. Today, the learned Advocate appearing for Respondent No. 14 who had
on 6th September, 2020 submitted that we should not pronounce the fnal order /
judgment in the Writ Petition since certain interim applications are subsequently taken
out and we should frst hear the same fnally, now states that this Court should not
hear the above matters at all since the Writ Petition itself, as per the current
assignment should be before the bench headed by the learned Chief Justice. In view
thereof, ofce to place a copy of this Order before the learned Chief Justice and obtain
necessary directions in the above matter.
4. Stand over to 22nd January, 2021.
(B.P.COLABAWALLA, J. ) ( S.J. KATHAWALLA, J. )
