Bombay High Court
Pushpa Bhadrakumar Savjani vs Samir Bhadrakumar Savjani And Others on 15 February, 2019
Author: G.S. Patel
Bench: G.S. Patel
908-NMS1203-15+.DOC
Shephali
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1203 OF 2015
IN
SUIT NO. 574 OF 2015
WITH
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 751 OF 2018
AND
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 2541 OF 2018
AND
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 2542 OF 2018
Pushpa Bhadrakumar Savjani & Anr ...Plaintiffs
Versus
Samir Bhadrakumar Savjani & Anr ...Defendants
Mr Sharan Jagtiani, with Swapna Roopavat, & Deepa Bisht i/b
Tushar Goradia, for the Plaintiff.
M/s APS Legal, for Defendant No. 1.
Mr TR Yadav, for Defendant No. 2.
Mr Dushyant Purekar, for Defendant No. 3.
Mr Samir B Savjani, Defendant No. 1, present in person.
Ms Peerbhoy, for the Society.
CORAM: G.S. PATEL, J
DATED: 15th February 2019
PC:-
Page 1 of 6
15th February 2019
::: Uploaded on - 18/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2019 14:48:14 :::
908-NMS1203-15+.DOC
1.Defendant No. 1 is present in Court. Till a few days ago, he was represented, and I thought extremely ably, by learned Senior Counsel Mr Mukesh Vashi. I have no manner of doubt that the 1st Defendant probably disapproved of Mr Vashi acting first as an officer of the Court, as indeed he is bound to do. I have had occasion in a recent order to make certain observations about the 1st Defendant and the manner in which he has so far chosen to manage his side of the litigation. I have no occasion today to change my mind. In fact, there is every reason now to pass strictures against him. After Mr Vashi returned the 1st Defendant's brief, the 1st Defendant and his attorneys engaged different counsel. The 2nd Defendant is separately represented.
2. I was today shown an Affidavit of 14th February 2019 by the 1st Defendant. One look at paragraph 2 of that Affidavit, and proceeding no further than that, was enough to decide that it is now high time the 1st Defendant was put to terms, and that he is made to realize that a litigation in this Court, especially with this array of parties, is not only not to be taken lightly but is not some game of chance. This is a Court, not a casino. I have, therefore, required the 1st Defendant to handwrite an Affidavit and indicated the undertakings that I want in that Affidavit. His counsel requested the matter be kept back while that Affidavit was drawn back. I agreed. When the matter was called again, counsel for both Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 indicated that now they, too, were unable to continue. In itself, this is a telling comment on the 1st and 2nd Defendants' conduct. Their attorneys confirm that they will continue. The 1st Page 2 of 6 15th February 2019 ::: Uploaded on - 18/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2019 14:48:14 ::: 908-NMS1203-15+.DOC Defendant has, of course, thought it fit to qualify the undertakings, chiefly by inserting a clause that his undertakings are without prejudice to his rights and contentions. More than anything else, this indicates how very little the 1st Defendant knows or understands about the litigation system and the obvious disregard that he has for Courts. If he imagines that his concerns will not be addressed by a Court or that a courts need his specific words, he is sorely mistaken. Obviously, any undertaking that I require from him is on a without prejudice basis but it is not he who will make that clear. It is I. It is not open to the 1st Defendant to either dictate the pace of this litigation or the disclosures he makes before the Court. He has, by his conduct of persistent selectiveness in disclosures and instructions, forfeited his right to an unqualified hearing. Specifically, I notice that the 1st Defendant has persistently tried to put in compilations without putting these on oath. Many of these documents have been undated, unsigned and without disclosure as to how and when he got them. Every time a question was asked, another document would materialize. It is for this reason that, on the last occasion, 11th February 2019, I insisted on the 1st Defendant filing an Affidavit of Disclosure complete in all respects. I said I would not permit an Affidavit thereafter.
3. What I did not permit, not indeed even anticipate, is that this person would think it appropriate in this Affidavit to accuse the Plaintiff, his own widowed mother, of having 'come to this Court with unclean hands', and more: of suppression, falsehood and of making baseless statements. To call this inappropriate is not enough. It is wholly unacceptable. I had made it clear to not only the 1st Defendant but to his two brothers that the exercise at present was to Page 3 of 6 15th February 2019 ::: Uploaded on - 18/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2019 14:48:14 ::: 908-NMS1203-15+.DOC ascertain whether the Plaintiff had sufficient funds of her own to meet an outstanding and pending society demand of about Rs. 24 lakhs and enough monthly wherewithal to meet her monthly living expense. The 1st Defendant seems to have misunderstood this to be a licence to him to mount a frontal assault on his mother. This conduct is deprecated in the strongest possible terms. I will not tolerate this. Whatever else the rest of this city may have become in this persistent pursuit of money and nothing beyond, there are other considerations that will prevail in my Court. The 1st Defendant will keep a civil tongue in all his pleadings and he will be always circumspect in what he says about his parent.
4. I am, therefore, now putting the 1st Defendant to terms. I will not even consider his Affidavit, though I will take it on file, until he has complied with those terms. From the witness box he confirms to me personally that he is agreeable to give an undertaking in the following terms:
(a) that he will by Wednesday, 20th February 2019, 5.00 pm deposit in this Court 1/3rd of the amount of the society dues, an amount that I am rounding of to Rs. 8 lakhs and
(b) that he will deposit an additional amount of Rs.
50,000/- per month as his 1/3rd share of maintenance for his mother, the Plaintiff, for the months of January, February and March 2019.
Page 4 of 615th February 2019 ::: Uploaded on - 18/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2019 14:48:14 ::: 908-NMS1203-15+.DOC
5. Mr Purekar for Defendant No. 3 agrees that his client will also do so by that date.
6. Defendant No. 2 is not personally present in this Court but an order in these terms will also operate against Defendant No. 2.
7. It will be open to the Defendant No. 1 to make the payment for and on behalf of Defendant No. 2 if he so chooses.
8. This deposit is presently to be held in Court by the Prothonotary and Senior Master until parties are heard on the limited questions that I have indicated above. I am making it clear that I am not requiring any of these three sons (and I use that word in its loosest possible sense today to indicate only their biological relationship) to their mother, the Plaintiff. I am only trying to ensure that if and when an order is made for contribution, the Plaintiff does not have to spend more time in getting that contribution. Furthermore, I see no reason why the society represented by Ms Peerbhoy before me today should constantly have to chase these parties for legitimate dues.
9. The fresh Affidavit containing these undertakings by the 1st Defendant and written out in his handwriting will be affirmed by the Court Associate in Court today and will be placed with the papers. Liberty to the Advocates for all the parties to take a copy thereafter.
Page 5 of 615th February 2019 ::: Uploaded on - 18/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2019 14:48:14 ::: 908-NMS1203-15+.DOC
10. I am making it clear that if these deposits are not made as indicated, I will not hear the defaulting party on any aspect of the matter.
11. Finally, so that there is absolutely no controversy, I am making it clear that I am not concerned at the moment with any dispute that may exist between these three brothers inter se. The only enquiry before me at present is whether the Plaintiff has independent and unfettered access to sufficient funds for her monthly upkeep and whether the payment of arrears to the society should be equally divided between all four parties or should be borne by the sons alone.
12. By 11.30 am on Monday, the 1st Defendant will unlock the one bedroom in the house at Mt Unique at Peddar Road that he has kept locked with a biometric lock. This is required so that the Society can inspect that area for essential repairs similar to the ones that are carried out to the rest of the building. As I have previously ordered, none of the contents of that room are to be removed.
13. List the matter first on board on 28th February 2019.
(G. S. PATEL, J) Page 6 of 6 15th February 2019 ::: Uploaded on - 18/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2019 14:48:14 :::