Rajesh Mishra And Beena Mishra ... vs Shree Ahuja Properties Pvt. Ltd. ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 8799 Bom

                                                        30_APPL_11941_OF_2021_FINAL.doc

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                  ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
                        APPEAL (L) NO.11941 OF 2021
                                    IN
                     NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1318 OF 2019
               ALONG WITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1518 OF 2019
                                    IN
                            SUIT NO.760 OF 2019

Rajesh Mishra and Beena Mishra                                    ...        Appellants
      Versus
Shree Ahuja Properties Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.                         ...      Respondents

Ms. Sunita M. Poddar i/by Ms. Daya Jadhav, Mr. Rohan A. Waghmare, for
Appellants.
Mr. Virag Tulzapurkar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Aditya Shiralkar, Mr. Nitesh
Ranavat, Ms. Disha Shetty, Mr. Akash Lodha i/by Wadia Ghandy and Co., for
Respondent No.1.
Mr. Sagar Patil, for MCGM.
Mr. Vineet Naik, Senior Advocate with Mr. Karl Tamboly, Ms. Gauri Joshi i/by
Ganesh and Co., for Respondent No.11.
Mr. D.N.Kher, Court Receiver present.
                          CORAM:       S.J. KATHAWALLA &
                                       MILIND N. JADHAV, JJ.

(THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING)

DATE: 6th JULY, 2021

P.C.:

1. By the above Appeal, the Appellants have impugned the Order passed by

the Learned Single Judge (Coram : A.K.Menon, J.) dated 3 rd May, 2021. By the said

Order, the Learned Single Judge has allowed the Notice of Motion taken out by the

Original Plaintif - Ahuja Properties Pvt. Ltd., interalia against the Clients of Advocate

Sunita M. Poddar, who are the Appellants herein.

SSP 1/5

30_APPL_11941_OF_2021_FINAL.doc

2. By the said Order dated 3rd May, 2021, the Notice of Motion No.1518 of

2019 taken out by the Clients of Advocate Poddar was also disposed of by the Learned

Single Judge. However, in the said Order, it was recorded that the Notice of Motion

No.1318 of 2019 is rejected. Since the Appellants who were represented by Advocate

Poddar have by way of an Appeal challenged the Order of the Learned Single Judge

allowing the Notice of Motion No.1318 of 2019, Advocate Poddar and the Appellants

were well aware that the statement made at one place in the Order that Notice of

Motion No.1318 of 2019 is rejected, was obviously a mistake.

3. On 8th June, 2021, the Appeal fled by the Appellants i.e. Clients of

Advocate Poddar along with the Interim Application was called out before us. We

heard Advocate Poddar at substantial length. When Advocate Poddar realized that we

were not inclined to interfere with the impugned Order, despite knowing fully well that

the statement made in the impugned Order regarding the Notice of Motion No.1318 of

2019 being rejected, is nothing but a mistake, Ms. Poddar submitted that Notice of

Motion No.1318 of 2019 is rejected by the Learned Single Judge and that she be given

time to get the order corrected / clarifed. Only since Advocate Poddar repeatedly

stated that she has serious health problems, we granted liberty to the parties to move

the Learned Single Judge on the next day at 11.00 a.m. and seek necessary

corrections / clarifcations.

4. On the next date i.e. 9 th June, 2021, the Advocate for Respondent No.1

SSP 2/5

30_APPL_11941_OF_2021_FINAL.doc

informed the Court that they had in the morning session moved the Learned Single

Judge seeking the necessary correction in the Order, and the same is corrected.

However, Advocate Poddar was not present before the Learned Single Judge. In

response, Advocate Poddar sought a week's time to move the Learned Single Judge on

the ground that the impugned Order needs further corrections. By this time, the

Court had realized that after the hearing held on 8 th June, 2021, Advocate Poddar does

not want to conclude her submissions and is wanting to delay the same. However,

only because Advocate Poddar again repeatedly stated that she has serious health

issues, we adjourned the matter to 15 th June, 2021 at 3.00 p.m., to enable her to move

the Learned Single Judge and seek further clarifcations.

5. On 15th June, 2021 Advocate Poddar once again addressed us at some

length. Her submissions were nothing but a repetition of the submissions made by her

before us on 8th June, 2021. We therefore by consent proceeded to hear the Appeal

fnally. The Learned Advocate for the Respondents also made their submissions before

us in brief. Advocate Poddar once again being given some time to respond fnally

again repeated her earlier arguments. When we tried to stop her, she protested on the

ground that she has serious health issues. We therefore, asked the parties to fle their

written submissions. The Order passed by us on 15th June, 2021 reads thus :

"1. By consent, the above Appeal is taken up for fnal hearing at the stage of admission.

2. Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties at some

SSP 3/5

30_APPL_11941_OF_2021_FINAL.doc

length.

3. The learned Advocates appearing for the parties are allowed to fle their respective written submissions by 21st June, 2021.

4. Stand over to 24th June, 2021.

5. In the meantime, earlier ad-interim order if any, shall continue."

6. The Order passed by us on 24th June, 2021 is reproduced hereunder :

"1. We had heard Ms. Sunita Poddar, learned Advocate appearing for the Appellants from time to time for about two hours. Thereafter, we had asked the parties to fle their written submissions. Pursuant thereto, detailed written submissions have been tendered by the Advocates for the parties, which are today taken on record.

2. Today a request is made by Adv. Daya Jadhav for a short adjournment on the ground that Advocate Sunita Poddar is bereaved and that she would on the adjourned date like to make a few submissions in the matter.

3. In view of the above circumstances, we are placing the matter on 29th June, 2021. However, we make it clear that we will not allow Ms. Poddar, learned Advocate for the Appellants to repeat any submissions already advanced by her before us, orally or in writing."

7. Thereafter, on 29th June, 2021, when we told Advocate Poddar that we

have gone through her written submissions and the same are a mere repetition of her

SSP 4/5

30_APPL_11941_OF_2021_FINAL.doc

oral submissions, she again sought time on the ground that she is unwell and unable to

speak due to her health issues and also because she lost her brother a few days back.

After reproducing the Order dated 24th June, 2021 we recorded as under :

"1.....

2. Today Ms. Poddar once again seeks time. Since detailed arguments have already been made earlier by Advocate Poddar followed by detailed written submissions fled by her, we are inclined to close the matter for orders. However, since Advocate Poddar states that she has recently lost her brother, as a last chance and only by way of indulgence, we are adjourning the matter to 6th July, 2021."

8. Despite the above Orders, we have today heard Advocate Poddar for

about 20 minutes during which she was only reading what is stated in her written

submissions. Since she had earlier orally argued all that is set out in her written

submissions, we informed her that we have gone through her written submissions and

she need not read out the same. Thereupon, she started shouting at the top of her

voice and asked us to record that we have not allowed her to make her submissions.

We have therefore, recorded what has transpired in Court since the very inception.

The Order in Appeal is reserved for Judgment.

( MILIND N. JADHAV, J.)                                  ( S.J.KATHAWALLA, J. )

SSP                                                                             5/5