A Bombay HC order with an official watermark has rattled a judge as his name is on it but he didn’t issue it. The order pertains to a claim for two bank deposits worth Rs 51 lakh & was issued on Dec 1, 2019, a Sunday, when the judge wasn’t working. What’s more, testamentary matters weren't assigned to him at that time.

The order was brought to Justice Gautam Patel’s notice by two advocates, who were looking into a succession petition of one Parth Goradia. Goradia had sought access to the estate of his late grand-uncle Satishchandra Goradia & Satishchandra’s son Mitesh, also deceased. Part of this succession petition was an order regarding grant of access to two term deposits dated Dec 1, 2019, purportedly with Justice Patel’s name on it.

The two advocates – Umesh Mohite & Hetal Pandya – brought this order to Justice Patel’s office to crosscheck the details. However, the judge’s staff found the formatting suspicious. The footer didn't have page numbers & the date. The fonts & the line spacing used were also different than what Justice Patel uses.

It was brought to Justice Patel’s notice last week & Mohite & Pandya were directed to file a formal complaint. On Tuesday, Justice Patel directed the Bombay HC Registrar to file an First Information Report (FIR) under various sections of the Criminal Procedure Code.

According to the advocates’ complaint, Parth Goradia approached them in the first week of February for file in filing a testamentary petition. Parth’s grand-uncle Satischandra Goradia had passed away in Jan 2020 & he wanted access to his estate, as Satishchandra’s son Mitesh had also died earlier in a car accident.

Parth informed the advocates that Satishchandra was involved in a litigation with regard to a succession certificate for his son Mitesh’s property & had engaged an advocate named Ashok Vageriya. When Mohite & Pandya searched the HC website sections for details of this petition, they couldn't find anything. On Feb 5, Parth forwarded them on WhatsApp a copy of an order purportedly issued by Justice Patel, which was later proved to be ‘forged’. It was also found that advocate Ashok Vageriya is not registered with the HC.

After inquiry & advocates’ complaint, Justice Patel issued an order on Feb 15 observing that “the entire document is a forgery”. He wrote, “There is no such order. There are several reasons for this. One, the document purports to be an order in the HC’s Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ‘in its Revenue & Property Division’. There is no such division. It purports to be in a Commercial Succession Petition no 23520 of 2019. There is no such proceeding… (Also) there is no testamentary petition with afive-digit lodging number.”

Looking at the formatting of the order, Justice Patel also noted that it is possible that the entire document was fabricated using some courtroom terminal, which needs to be investigated. He directed the Registrar (Legal & Research) to freeze the encashment of term deposits till the end of the probe. He has also summoned Vageriya & Parth Goradia to explain the forged document.

Source Link

Read Order Here:-

Share this Document :

Picture Source :